1AC – Solvency
Plan: The United States federal government should offer to sign a science and
technology agreement with Cuba.
Its topical and solves – science and technology agreements create a bilateral
framework for economic engagement
State Department (“Science and Technology Cooperation”,
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/stc/)
Thirty U.S. S&T Agreements worldwide establish bilateral frameworks to facilitate the exchange of
scientific results, provide for protection and allocation of i ntellectual p roperty r ights and benefit sharing,
facilitate access for researchers, address taxation issues, and respond to the complex set of issues
associated with economic development, domestic security and regional stability. S&T
cooperation supports
the
establishment of science-based industries , encourages investment
in national science infrastructure , education and
promotes international trade and dialogue on
the
application of scientific standards ,
issues of direct import to global security, such as
protection
of the environment and management of natural resources . S&T collaboration assists USG
agencies to establish partnerships with counterpart institutions abroad. These relationships enable
them to fulfill their individual responsibilities by providing all parties with access to new resources, materials, information, and
research. High priority areas include such areas as agricultural and industrial biotechnology research (including research on
microorganisms, plant and animal genetic materials, both aquatic and terrestrial), health sciences, marine research, natural products
chemistry, environment and energy research.
The Plan is key to effective US-Cuba engagement – Cuba would say yes and
science cooperation solves a laundry list of impacts
Lempinen 12 – AAAS reporter, AAAS is The AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy is guided by the over-arching goal of using
science to build bridges between countries and to promote scientific cooperation as an essential element of foreign policy. Since its
establishment in 2008, the Center has been particularly interested in identifying opportunities for science diplomacy to serve as a
catalyst between societies where official relationships might be limited and to strengthen civil society interactions through
partnerships in science and technology. In 2012, the Center launched a new open-access, quarterly publication, Science &
Diplomacy, as a forum for policy discourse at the nexus of scientific cooperation and foreign policy. (Edward, “Oceans, Weather,
Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues”, May 1, 2012,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml HW)
They are next-door neighbors, sharing all the amenities and challenges of the neighborhood—oceans
teeming
with life, the risk of tropical diseases, a changing climate that may be giving rise to bigger and more
frequent hurricanes. And yet, because the neighbors are barely on speaking terms, they
cannot share the opportunities and the responsibilities that come with solving the challenges.
Today, however, scientists in both Cuba and the United States are exploring whether a thaw in
relations between the two nations could allow for a range of new or expanded joint research
projects that could bring benefits to both nations and others in the Caribbean Basin.
Recent visits
and consultations facilitated by AAAS and the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba (Academy of Sciences of Cuba) underscored that both
sides see potential for substantive science collaboration. “The recent visits showed that the
Cuban mindset is really ready to reach out,” said Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and
a former president of AAAS, who returned in March from his third visit to the nation. “The scientists would
have no trouble working together... The Cubans are understandably proud of their science,
and they see us very positively. I would anticipate if we could normalize relations and do
science as a starting point, then really good things could happen.” “The possibility of open
scientific exchange between researchers in Cuba and the U.S. can only bring increased
benefits for both scientific communities, and of course, for the people in their respective
countries,” said Sergio Jorge Pastrana, foreign secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba.
“The kind of scientific development that took place in Cuba for the last half-century has produced original results that have been
internationally recognized as being in the frontiers of knowledge in several fields. Science,
along with technology and
innovation, has produced outcomes that are important for societies not only in Cuba and the
United States, but in neighboring countries of the Caribbean, and for sustainable development
everywhere.” Vaughan C. Turekian, director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, said that
researchers from both nations have focused on science, not on the politics that have divided the two nations
for a half-century. “Especially on the environmental side, there is not an issue that we discussed that doesn’t have direct
implications and impact both on Cuba and the United States,” said Turekian, who also serves as AAAS’s chief international officer.
“Given the proximity, when you’re talking about atmospheric or marine science, if it travels to Cuba, it travels to the Southeast coast
of United States, too. If it spawns off the coast of Cuba, it is caught or affected by currents that go into the United States.” The AAAS
Center for Science Diplomacy organized an initial three-day visit to Cuba in November 2009, with Agre, then the AAAS president, and
seven other U.S. science leaders. AAAS helped to facilitate a second visit last December, with 18 independent scientists traveling to
the island for informal talks centered on marine science, atmospheric science, environmental change, conserving biodiversity at
large scales, sustainable fisheries, and capacity-building. Agre, who heads the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, returned to
Cuba in March to speak at Biotechnology Havana 2012, an international congress that focused on medical applications of biotech.
Since the early 1960s, just after the Cuban revolution, the two neighbors have been locked in a Caribbean cold war; though they are
just 90 miles apart, the relationship has been characterized by economic and cultural barriers, sometimes sharp political conflict, and
broad dimensions of mistrust. Advocates
see science diplomacy as a way to do important research with
value for all sides, and to build constructive engagement in a non-political environment. History
dating back well over 100 years suggests that Cuba and the United States are “natural scientific partners,”
Pastrana said in an April email interview. “As both science communities were establishing their own scientific institutions during the
19th century, many scientists and scholars from both countries started links of exchange, discussion and cooperation,” he said. “The
relations of Cuban scientific research centers, as well as of many scientists and scholars, with the Smithsonian Institution,
universities like Harvard, Columbia or Yale, go way back and, in many ways, have been important for both sides for a very long time.
“Some of those links have never disappeared, and have continued over particularly difficult moments, overcoming political hurdles,
to produce important publications, collections, and scientific results that are of benefit to the peoples in both countries.” The recent
engagements have allowed AAAS and other scientists to further develop their ties with Pastrana and Fidel Ángel Castro Díaz-Balart—
Fidel Castro’s oldest son—a nuclear physicist and leader in his nation’s science policy community. The December trip also included a
special side event: Agre and Alan Robock, a Rutgers atmospheric scientist, were invited to a three-hour meeting with former Cuban
leader Fidel Castro, Castro’s wife, and his sons Fidel and Antonio, an orthopedic surgeon. “The meeting with Fidel was really
interesting,” Agre said. “It was about the past. He spoke about his family, growing up... He described the Revolution, the Bay of Pigs,
the missile crisis. It was a much different perspective than I expected. “I mostly listened. If I meet him again—and I don’t know if I
will—he asked me to bring him my research papers. But the fact that he and I sat in the same room—he didn’t see me as an enemy.
I’m a scientist, born the same year as his son.” But the
central focus of the Cuban meetings was science, and
informal scientist-to-scientist consultations and discussions. They focused on common interests and on the
prospects—and challenges—of working together. “There’s a definite pride in the work they do there, and the research they do,” said
Joanne Carney, director of the AAAS Office of Government Relations. “When we talk about collaboration, they really want honest
collaboration and partnership, as opposed to funding or resources. They
definitely are interested in pursuing
areas of mutual interest.” Malaria and the Caribbean Both Turekian and Agre cited malaria as one area where
the U.S. scientists might learn much from Cuba. And that might tie in to an interest shared by both countries in
working to support health and human development in the impoverished Caribbean nation of Haiti. “Malaria is endemic in Haiti,”
Agre said. “It was endemic in Cuba, but one of the objectives of the revolution was to eliminate malaria—and they achieved that.
How did they do it? That’s something I would like to pursue.... In Cuba, vaccinations and prevention are a high priority.” Unchecked
malaria or other diseases in Haiti can be a destabilizing factor even for neighboring nations, Turekian said. “It leads to a lot of people
moving back and forth, and it reduces Haiti’s internal strength and stability,” he explained. “So Cuba and the United States could
have mutual interests in working on this.” So too with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), added Agre. Because of hurricanes,
earthquakes, crime and other human disasters, PTSD is widespread in Haiti. “The Cubans have an interest in that, and we have an
interest in that,” he said. “We could work on it together.” Atmospheric
Science Atmospheric research is
another area where Cuba and the United States share tangible common interests. Hurricanes and
other storms go over Cuba en route to the United States. Clues gained from atmospheric conditions over the Caribbean can give
insights—and perhaps early warning—about tornados in Oklahoma and Arkansas, or storms in Chicago and New York. It is an area of
particular interest for Turekian, an atmospheric geochemist. “There
is no doubt that real atmospheric science
involving Cuba—measurements, understanding of atmospheric conditions—is important not only for better
understanding of transport of African dust, but also for getting a handle on how atmospheric
conditions and dynamics affect the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern United States,” he said.
“Given that tornadoes are driven by really complicated dynamics that involve large amounts of warm air coming up through the Gulf
and interacting with cold fronts, any data we can gain can mean lives saved.... But you can’t
hope to understand
things like storms as they affect the Southeast Coast of the United States without having
better joint cooperation between scientists in the U.S. and Cuba, and without research, instruments, and
calibration to measure dynamics that affect us both.” Still, both Turekian and Robock suggested that official mistrust and the trade
embargo combine to make such collaboration on climate research difficult, if not impossible. Robock, in an interview, outlined
efforts by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder to install global positioning system devices in the central Cuban
city of Camaguey. The GPS devices receive signals from satellites; microwave signals are affected by transmission through the
atmosphere, and depending on the density of the atmosphere, that allows for insights on weather and climate change. There are
nearly 100 such devices in the Caribbean, Robock explained, but Cuba, though one of the largest land masses in the Caribbean, hosts
none of them. “Basic weather data are already shared by all the countries of the world,” he said. “But taking specific measurements
there with the GPS would be useful to Cubans and to the larger community. It gives you better information about the state of the
atmosphere—temperature, humidity, soil moisture. That’s what you need to start a weather forecast model.” But the Cuban military
is wary of the GPS devices, and the nation has not approved the installation. At the same time, the
U.S. embargo of Cuba
makes it impossible for Cuban scientists to come to the United States for even a week-long
course in how to use a computer climate model. “Scientists from both countries want to work together,”
Robock said. “We’ll do the best we can... but there are significant limitations.”
“From the scientific
standpoint,” Turekian added, “this is about the ability to go to a place to make measurements so that we can better understand
hurricanes and other conditions that affect the Caribbean and the southeastern United States. To do that, we
need
relationships and protocols so that Americans and the Cubans together can benefit from
measurements in Cuba.” Marine Science Coral reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from
human activity—over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says marine scientist Nancy
Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and they’re in better health. Knowlton is the Sant Chair for Marine
Science at Smithsonian Institution and senior scientist emeritus at Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. She’s worked in fields of
marine biodiversity and ecology; coral reefs are her specialty. Save for a cruise that stopped in Guantanamo, she’d never been to
Cuba, but on her visit in December, she was deeply impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the marine
science already underway there. “There are amazing habitats, much less impacted by people than most places in Caribbean, in terms
of over-fishing and that sort of thing,” she said. “And there’s a large community of marine biologists there,
many with shared interest in biodiversity and conservation.” For Knowlton, the Cuban reefs are like “a window in time,” allowing
researchers a view of what healthy reefs looked like in an era past. “They give you a baseline as to what a healthy fish community
should look like,” she explained. And that gives greater insight into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced. “So
there are a lot of things to learn from Cuban marine scientists,” she said. “And there are a lot of reasons for Cubans to come here, or
for Cubans to come and work at the Smithsonian. There’s
a huge potential for interchange because there are
so many shared interests.” Small Steps, Significant Potential Those shared interests appear to extend across many fields.
Carney, whose parents were born in Cuba, met in December with Cuban counterparts who study and help shape government
science and technology policy. “From my own perspective in talking to their scientists, I was struck by some of the similarities
between our communities,” Carney said. The Cubans “face challenges in policy decisions regarding research priorities, and how to
balance between basic research and applied research. They provide universal health care, and so life science research is a bit more
targeted, a bit more applied. But looking forward, you want to balance the applied portion with the basic research. “It’s interesting
that we’re both faced with similar issues, even though our systems are different.” Scientists
from both countries are
aware, of course, of the considerable obstacles that stand in the way of full collaboration.
Visas and the U.S. embargo are obvious problems. But where scientists in a wealthy nation like the United
States take digital and Internet resources for granted, bandwidth in Cuba can be so limited that it’s difficult or
impossible to exchange data. Given those constraints, the immediate prospects for full,
constructive engagement between science communities are slender at best. And yet Robock, Carney,
and others said the visits have made clear that working with Cuban scientists is easier than it might appear. “Any academic can go to
Cuba and spend money without restriction,” Robock explained. “You need a license from the U.S. Treasury Department to spend
money, but as a researcher, you are subject to the existing general license. So many more Americans could go to Cuba and start
doing science with them—but they don’t know that they can.” One of the ideas to emerge from the discussions, Carney said, was a
Web resource page that would provide such practical information to both scientific communities. These may be small steps, but they
have a significant value in helping to build the foundation for collaboration among researchers in Cuba and the United States.
Though the formal relationship between the two nations has long been strained, the scientists
are betting on better times ahead, even if they don’t know exactly when. “While it’s been the same for
50 years, it will change—political relationships always do,” said Turekian. “Whenever that relationship changes, you want to be in
place where you have the groundwork laid and relationships built so you can take advantage of areas where science cooperation can
actually contribute to both countries.” In the meantime, efforts will continue, building on the collegiality that visitors to the island
have shared with their hosts. “Everyone who
was there was a pretty good science diplomat,” said
Knowlton. “There was no uneasiness—there was a lot of curiosity on both sides to meet people and find out what people
are doing.... Everyone was going out of their way to be gracious. That’s important—you have to be willing to listen as well as to talk.
It was lovely. I’d really like to go back.” Added Agre: “Non-governmental science and AAAS have a tremendously important role to
play. More
than ever, science is a way for us to break barriers between adversaries. It’s a
constructive way for the world to move ahead.” Pastrana, too, sounded an ambitious note for the future. “Any
hurdle that comes in the way of international exchange in science is limiting its capacity to be of help for increasing the resilience of
this world’s environments,” he said. “Only the knowledge, technologies, and products that come from scientific developments could
provide the tools for societies to be able to continue human development in harmony with the only planet that sustains them so far,
which has been abused for the last half-century far beyond its capacity to cope with such abuse. “Let
us be in favor of
scientists and their open communication everywhere. In this way, they would be able to
contribute to the sustainability of human societies on planet Earth.”
Status quo is insufficient – removing barriers to science cooperation is key
Johnson 12 – CSIS, a senior fellow and director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. He has more than 20 years of experience in Western Hemisphere affairs spanning
policymaking, policy advocacy, and public affairs in the Department of Defense, the Washington policy community, and the State
Department. From 2007 to 2009, Johnson served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affairs,
overseeing the development and execution of policies, strategies, and programs governing hemispheric defense and security ties.
From 1999 to 2006, Johnson served as a senior foreign policy analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, testifying
before Congress and authoring studies on U.S. policy as well as Latin American politics, trade, development, and security. His
commentaries have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Business Week, and Diario Las Américas. His broadcast
appearances have included CNN en Español, Univisión, Telemundo, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. He is the author of Iran’s Influence in the
Americas. (Stephen, “U.S.-Cuba Academic and Science-Based Exchanges”, August 2012,
http://csis.org/files/publication/120821_Johnson_U.S.-CubaExchanges_Web.pdf, HW)
Since the early days of official U.S. public diplomacy at the outset of the Cold War, promoting
dialogue with citizens of
foreign nations has been a way to build bridges of understanding and defuse tensions. The
Fulbright Exchange Program, which dates from 1946, and more recent U.S. International Visitor Programs have exposed individuals,
some who later became national leaders, to American life and its democratic values. Exchanges with friendly countries are easy and
help strengthen existing ties. Exchanges
with hostile nations are sometimes nearly impossible but
develop inroads that can lead to better relations. To the extent that the U.S. government can
finance much of these activities, Americans consider it good public policy, even though such long-term
investments can take decades to pay off. Pursuing exchange opportunities with Cubans follows this logic, but with a twist. Current
U.S. rules allow purposeful travel on the part of academics, students, medical professionals, and journalists. Over the past decade, as
many as 2,500 American students a year have studied in Cuba. However, travel
for Cubans to the United States is
extremely limited. Since the revolution that replaced a petty dictator with a repressive, totalitarian government in 1959, the
population has served as a captive labor force in which all able adults were expected to work for the state. In the past two years,
that situation has begun to change as a result of the shift in leadership from Fidel Castro to his brother Raúl. The twist is that Cuban
authorities remain deeply suspicious of any U.S. government involvement in exchanges and still worry about letting citizens travel to
countries where they may be tempted to stay. While lifting the U.S. ban on tourism to Cuba might put feet on the ground and
increase chances for superficial encounters, exchanges
afford some measure of control and open the door
to relationships that may result in deeper understanding. While artistic and sports exchanges are probably
the most familiar, they usually provide only modest exposure, whereas academic exchanges can involve intense
discussions and personal interactions. Literature, social science, and economics are safe subjects that generate
interesting debates. If they are designed to prevent leakage of sensitive technology, medical, scientific, and
technological exchanges can be mutually beneficial and enable further cooperation in such
areas as environmental protection, disaster response, and public health. Conferences and study
opportunities that take place in the United States afford the best possibility for enabling Cubans to experience American life and be
exposed to democratic values. One caveat must be clearly understood: for the most part, Cuban exchange participants do not
represent a broad cross-section of society. Rather, they are government employees, selected on the basis of loyalty to the state. Still,
this segment of Cuban society should not be ignored. As it turns out, the United States and Cuba have a long history of exchanges,
ranging from short-term collaboration to long-standing partnerships. From the early twentieth century, the two countries have
shared information in fields ranging from meteorology to dentistry. However, decades of tension followed the rise of Cuba’s Sovietstyle dictatorship and the break in bilateral relations. Still, a substantial number of education and science-based initiatives have been
attempted since 1961, meeting with success and failure, depending on the political and social climate at the time. It is worth noting
that U.S. advocates of science exchanges have pursued initiatives with other closed societies ,
including Iran, North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK), Syria, and Myanmar. Most have faced significant
challenges in arranging visits to partner countries. Nonetheless, these
advocates have helped establish
relationships between U.S. and partner country participants that could be expanded when
political relations improve. Such relationships include information sharing on topics such as
health and medicine, agriculture, forestry, and technology and have contributed lessons on
how to facilitate and plan scholarly exchanges in similar situations. Also noteworthy are barriers that both
the United States and Cuba impose on meetings. U.S. restrictions are grounded in legislation that tasks the Department of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to regulate financial transactions and travel. A party desiring an exchange with
Cubans must find a Cuban partner organization and work with the government. Visas for licensed American travelers to visit Cuba
legally and exit permits for Cubans to travel to external locations are difficult but not impossible to obtain. Practical impediments
include expenses that most Cubans are not able to pay. U.S. migration policies that welcome Cuban asylum seekers coupled with
economic opportunities unmatched on the island have also led Cuban authorities to insist on picking participants they believe are
likely to remain loyal to the regime and return to the island. Until those situations change, best practices for conducting successful
exchanges include observing equality in participant numbers and professional status. Agendas for conferences should be developed
jointly to avoid sensitive subjects—a precaution that is especially important for events taking place in Cuba, where freedom of
expression is restricted. A recent Latin American studies conference in San Francisco broke this guideline and featured Raúl Castro’s
daughter, who said she would vote to reelect President Obama, highlighting the fact that political observations by a U.S. exchange
participant would not be tolerated in Cuba.1 Finally, for study opportunities in the United States. For
the time being,
prospects remain modest for meaningful exchanges as well as study opportunities for Cubans
in the United States. However, properly structured, they might yield beneficial results in
building friendly contacts and mutual understanding with Cuba’s younger generations and
perhaps future leaders. This is one area where the United States could take measures such as
lowering U.S. visa fees, should the regime’s foreign travel restrictions change. Changes in migration
policies that grant automatic residency may not be practical until Cuba implements basic human rights guarantees. Although U.S.
regulations are strict and Cuban travel barriers are difficult to overcome, academic
exchanges that result in visits to
the United States do occur on an infrequent basis and have the potential to expand if U.S.
educational institutions and associations work within restrictions and guidelines, seek Cuban partners, and pay expenses.
1AC – Advantages
Science cooperation solves Latin American relations, disaster preparedness,
tropical diseases, biotechnology and biodiversity
Pastrana & Clegg, 08. Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Foreign
Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological
Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of
California (Sergio, Michael, “U.S.-Cuban Scientific Relations”. 7/3/13.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5900/345.full?ijkey=3aK7XuLHCJLJ.&keytype=ref&sit
eid=sci. KJ)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—
those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the
proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on
exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act
and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a
new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate,
agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. ¶
Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of
opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly
in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research
facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific
community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba
typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great
destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike.
Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and
minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was
less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a
category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.¶ Another major
example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical
diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in
the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th
century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue
fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is
almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S.
mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an
investment in the health security of both peoples. ¶ Cuba has also made important strides in
biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal
antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug
addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in
research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China,
and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. ¶ The
value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for
evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based
approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond
allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build
important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations
report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America
because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen
as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into
scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially
because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. ¶ As a
start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as
dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as
to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased
scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in
science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The
U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our
mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.
[Relations Impact]
LA relations spill over over to broader relations – solves democracy, warming,
and prolif
Shifter 12 - President of the Sol M. Linowitz Forum Intern-American Dialogue
Michael, "Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America" Inter-American
Dialogue Policy Report -- April -www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to ¶ pursue more robust
ties .¶ Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and ¶ expanded
economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy
resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market ¶
and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin ¶ America, and it could contribute
more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably
become ¶ more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future .The United States and
many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by more cooperation
on such global matters ¶ as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and
human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic
integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for
hemispheric partnership. Despite
the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations
between ¶ the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities
are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the ¶ current situation
persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild ¶ vigorous cooperation .
Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both ¶ from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean
Failure to move towards democracy sacrifices billions of lives. authoritarian
regimes are history's number one killer – This outweighs every impact in the
round.
Rudy Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, “Why Foster Global Freedom,” 2009,
January 10. http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/page/2/
Today, billions of human beings are
still subject to impoverishment, exposure, starvation,
disease, torture, rape, beatings, forced labor, genocide, mass murder, executions,
deportations, political violence, and war. These billions live in fear for their lives,
and for those of their loved ones. They have no human rights, no liberties. These
people are only pieces on a playing board for the armed thugs and gangs that oppress
their nations, raping them, looting them, exploiting them, and murdering them. We
hide the identity of the gangs—we sanctify them—with the benign concept of “government,” as in the
“government” of Kim’s North Korea, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Hitler’s Germany. The gangs that
control these so-called governments oppress whole nations under cover of
international law. They are like a gang that captures a group of hikers and then does with them
what it wills, robbing all, torturing and murdering some because gang members don’t like them or
they are “disobedient,” and raping others. Nonetheless, the thugs that rule nations “govern” by the
right of sovereignty: the community of nations explicitly grants them the right by international law to
govern a nation when they show that they effectively control the national government, and this right
carries with it the promise that other nations will not intervene in their internal affairs. International
law now recognizes that if these gangs go to extremes, such as massive ethnic
cleansing or genocide, then the international community has a countervailing right to
stop them. However, this area of international law is still developing, and in the
current examples of Cuba, Burma, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
and Syria, among others, the thugs still largely have their way with their victims.
This is unconscionable. The people of these countries, and all people everywhere have the
right to freedom of speech, religion, organization, and a fair trial, among other rights,
and one overarching right to be free subsumes all these civil and political rights. This
right overrules sovereignty, which is granted according to tradition based on a system of
international treaties, not natural law. Freedom, by contrast, is not something others grant. It is a
right due every human being. For too many intellectuals, however, it is not enough to point
out that a people have a right to be free. They will counter by arguing that freedom is
desirable, but first people must be made equal, given food to eat, work, and health
care. Freedom must be limited as a means to good ends, such as the public welfare, prosperity, peace,
ethnic unity, or national honor. These intellectuals also have been allowed to assume the
moral high ground. Freedom, they tell us, empowers greed, barbaric competition,
inefficiency, inequality, the debasement of morals, the weakening of ethnic or racial
identity, and so on. Sometimes they are so persuasive that even reasonable people
will accept their convoluted arguments. Need I mention the works of Marx and
Lenin, for example, who provided “scientific” excuses for the tyranny of such thugs
as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? To be defensive about freedom in the face of such justifications is
morally wrong-headed. No moral code or civil law allows that a gang leader and his
followers can murder, torture, and repress some at will as long as the thugs provide
others with a good life. But even were it accepted that under the cover of government authority, a
ruler can murder and repress his people so long as it promotes human betterment, the burden of proof
is on those who argue that therefore those people will be better off There is no such proof. Quite the
opposite: in the twentieth century, we have had the most costly and extensive tests of such arguments,
involving billions of people. The Nazis, Italian fascists under Mussolini, Japanese militarists, and
Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek have tested fascist promises of a better life. Likewise,
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have tested the utopian promises of communism, to mention the most
prominent communist experiments; and Burma, Iraq, and Syria, among others, also have tested state
socialism. All these vast social experiments have failed, utterly and miserably, and they have done so
at the vast human cost that has included global social upheaval, the displacement of millions, the
impoverishment of billions, and the death of tens of millions from famine, extreme internal violence,
and the most destructive wars—not to mention the many hundreds of millions murdered outright.
These social experiments have involved the mass murder of 262,000,000 Russians, Chinese,
Cambodians, Poles, North Koreans, Cubans, Vietnamese, and others, such that were their souls to
comprise a land of the dead it would be among the world’s top three in population In sharp contrast,
there are the arguments for freedom. Not only is a right certified in international law (e.g., the various
human rights multinational conventions), but a supreme moral good in itself. The very fact of a
people’s freedom creates a better life for all. Free people create a wealthy and prosperous society
When people are free to go about their own business, they put their ingenuity and creativity in the
service of all. They search for ways to satisfy the needs, desires, and wants of others. The true utopia
lies not in some state-sponsored tyranny, but the free market in goods, ideas, and services, whose
operating principle is that success depends on satisfying others. Moreover, it is not by chance that:
No democratically free people have suffered from mass famine It is extraordinary, how
little known this is. There are plenty of hunger projects and plans to increase food aid for the starving
millions, all of which is good enough in the short run. A starving person will die before the people can
kick out their rulers or make them reform their policies. Yet simply feeding the starving today is
not enough. They also have to be fed tomorrow and every day thereafter. However,
free these people from their rulers’ commands over their farming, and soon they will
be able to feed themselves and others as well. There is an adage that applies to this: “Give a
starving person a fish to eat and you feed him only for one day; teach him how to fish, and he feeds
himself forever.” Yet teaching is no good alone, if people are not free to apply their new knowledge—
yes, teach them how to fish, but also promote the freedom they need to do so Surprisingly, the
incredible economic productivity and wealth produced by a free people and their
freedom from famines are not the only moral goods of freedom, nor, perhaps, even the
most important moral goods. When people are free, they comprise a spontaneous
society the characteristics of which strongly inhibit society-wide political violence.
Freedom greatly reduces the possibility of revolutions, civil war, rebellions, guerrilla
warfare, coups, violent riots, and the like. Most of the violence within nations occurs
where thugs rule with absolute power. There is a continuum here: The more power the
rulers have, and the less free their people, the more internal violence these people
will suffer Surely that which protects people against internal violence, that which so saves human
lives, is a moral good. And this is freedom Then there is mass democide, the most
destructive means of ending human lives of any form of violence. Except in the case
of the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews, few people know how murderous the
dictators of this world have been, and could be. Virtually unknown are the shocking
tens of millions murdered by Stalin and Mao, and the other millions wiped out by
Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-sung, and their kind. Just omitting foreigners, who are
most often murdered during a war, such thugs murdered about 161,000,000 of their
own people from 1900 to 1987. Adding foreigners and including the whole twentieth
century raises the toll they have killed to nearly the incredible aforementioned
262,000,000. Even now, in the twenty-first century, these mass murders still go on in
Burma, Sudan, North Korea, and the Congo (DR), just to mention the most glaring
examples. What is true about freedom and internal violence is also so for this mass democide: The
more freedom a people have, the less likely their rulers will murder them. The more
power the thugs have, the more likely they are to murder their people Could there be
a greater moral good than to end or minimize such mass murder? This is what
freedom does and for this it is, emphatically, a moral good. There is still more to say about
freedom’s value. While we now know that the world’s ruling thugs generally kill several times more
of their subjects than do wars, it is war on which moralists and pacifists generally focus their hatred,
and devote their resources to ending or moderating. This singular concentration is understandable,
given the horror and human costs, and the vital political significance of war. Yet, it should be clear by
now that war is a symptom of freedom’s denial, and that freedom is the cure. First: Democratically
free people do not make war on each other Why? The diverse groups, cross-national
bonds, social links, and shared values of democratic peoples sew them together; and
shared liberal values dispose them toward peaceful negotiation and compromise with
each other. It is as though the people of democratic nations were one society This
truth that democracies do not make war on each other provides a solution for
eliminating war from the world: globalize democratic freedom Second: The less free
the people within any two nations are, the bloodier and more destructive the wars
between them; the greater their freedom, the less likely such wars become And third:
The more freedom the people of a nation have, the less bloody and destructive their
wars. What this means is that we do not have to wait for all, or almost all nations to
become liberal democracies to reduce the severity of war. As we promote freedom, as
the people of more and more nations gain greater human rights and political liberties, as those people
without any freedom become partly free, we will decrease the bloodiness of the world’s
wars. In short: Increasing freedom in the world decreases the death toll of its wars.
Surely, whatever reduces and then finally ends the scourge of war in our history, without causing a
greater evil, must be a moral good. And this is freedom In conclusion, then, we have wondrous human
freedom as a moral force for the good, as President Bush well recognizes. Freedom produces social
justice, creates wealth and prosperity, minimizes violence, saves human lives, and is a solution to war.
In two words, it creates human security. Moreover, and most important: People should not be free
only because it is good for them. They should be free because it is their right as human beings. In
opposition to freedom is power, its antagonist. While freedom is a right, the power to govern is a
privilege granted by a people to those they elect and hold responsible for its use. Too often, however,
thugs seize control of a people with their guns and use them to make their power total and absolute.
Where freedom produces wealth and prosperity, such absolute power causes impoverishment and
famine. Where freedom minimizes internal violence, eliminates genocide and mass
murder, and solves the problem of war, such absolute power unleashes internal
violence, murders millions, and produces the bloodiest wars. In short, power kills;
absolute power kills absolutely.
Proliferation snowballs and puts everyone on hair trigger – every small crisis
will go nuclear.
Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, serves on the U.S.
congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and
Terrorism, ‘9 (Henry, Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd, Policy Review June & July,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)
such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed
during the Cold War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or
At a minimum,
another of the two superpowers’ strong alliance systems — the U.S.-led free world and the RussianChinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small, nonindustrial wars.
This alliance tension and system, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now have one superpower, the
United States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone,
associated with a relatively weak alliance system ( nato) that includes two European nuclear powers
(France and the uk). nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear targeting policies. The U.S. also has
retained its security allies in Asia (Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence of
an increasing number of nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried
to cope with independent nuclear powers by making them “strategic partners” (e.g., India and Russia),
nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), “non-nato allies” (e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic
stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran or
North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this
world, every nuclear power center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel,
India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relations or ties with one another but
none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being as important as
the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear-armed entities (see Figure 3). There are
limits, however, to what this approach can accomplish. Such a weak alliance system, with its
expanding set of loose affiliations, risks becoming analogous to the international system that
failed to contain offensive actions prior to World War I. Unlike 1914, there is no power today
that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces anywhere on the globe. But in a world with
an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready states, this may not matter as
much as we think. In such a world, the actions of just one or two states or groups that might
threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state could check U.S. influence or
ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing. No amount of military
science or tactics could assure that the U.S. could disarm or neutralize such threatening or
unstable nuclear states.22 Nor could diplomats or our intelligence services be relied upon to keep
up to date on what each of these governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see graphic
below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted above and one could easily
create the perfect nuclear storm: Small differences between nuclear competitors that
would put all actors on edge; an overhang of nuclear materials that could be called
upon to break out or significantly ramp up existing nuclear deployments; and a variety of
potential new nuclear actors developing weapons options in the wings. In such a setting, the
military and nuclear rivalries between states could easily be much more intense than
before. Certainly each nuclear state’s military would place an even higher premium than
before on being able to weaponize its military and civilian surpluses quickly, to deploy forces
that are survivable, and to have forces that can get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of
probability. The advanced military states will also be even more inclined to develop and deploy
enhanced air and missile defenses and long-range, precision guidance munitions, and to develop a
variety of preventative and preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a world, relations
between states could become far less stable. Relatively small developments — e.g.,
Russian support for sympathetic near-abroad provinces; Pakistani-inspired terrorist strikes in India,
such as those experienced recently in Mumbai; new Indian flanking activities in Iran near Pakistan;
Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts of
key figures in the Middle East or South West Asia, etc. — could easily prompt nuclear weapons
deployments with “strategic” consequences (arms races, strategic miscues, and even
nuclear war). As Herman Kahn once noted, in such a world “every quarrel or difference of
opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today.”23 In
short, we may soon see a future that neither the proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their critics,
would ever want.
Warming is an existential threat
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and
Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate
Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the
scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections,
which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at
constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C
(O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without
early and severe reductions in
emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are
likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the
associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and
advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure
and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist,
many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an
existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human
experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
[Disease Impact]
Disease spread causes conflict
Gordon 2000 (David, National Intelligence Officer for Economics and Global Issues, “The
Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States”,
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htm)
The persistent infectious disease burden is likely to aggravate and, in some cases, may even provoke
economic decay, social fragmentation, and political destabilization in the hardest hit countries in the
developing and former communist worlds, especially in the worst case scenario outlined above: The economic costs of infectious
diseases--especially HIV/AIDS and malaria--are already significant, and their increasingly heavy toll on productivity, profitability, and
foreign investment will be reflected in growing GDP losses, as well, that could reduce GDP by as much as 20 percent or more by 2010
in some Sub-Saharan African countries, according to recent studies. Some of the hardest hit countries in Sub-Saharan Africa--and
possibly later in South and Southeast Asia--will face a demographic upheaval as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human life
expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as a quarter of their populations over a decade or less, producing a huge orphan
cohort. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010; 19 of the hardest hit countries will
be in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The relationship between disease and political instability is indirect but
real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of state instability suggests that infant mortality--a good
with political instability, particularly in countries that
already have achieved a measure of democracy. The severe social and economic impact of infectious
diseases is likely to intensify the struggle for political power to control scarce state resources.
indicator of the overall quality of life--correlates strongly
[Biotech Impact]
Biotechnology advancement is key to avoid otherwise inevitable food shortages
Ahmad 12 – Professor in the department of botany, University of Kashmir, India. (Parvaiz, “Biotechnology as an Aid for Crop
Improvement to Overcome Food Shortage”, 2012, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4116-4_9, HW)
World’s population has crossed 6.5 billion with majority of human beings living in developing
or under developing countries. Clearly, food security in such countries will be a primary
concern over the next few decades. However, options for increased food production to meet
this population pressure are limited because most arable land is already under cultivation,
and in many areas land use cannot be further intensified without a risk to the long-term
productivity. Agricultural land use has been especially intense in recent years because of rapid urbanization and
increasing environmental pollution. The ultimate need is to use newer technologies which could help
us to curb this food insecurity. Biotechnology is globally recognized as a rapidly emerging,
complex and far reaching new technology. It has revolutionized all the fields of life. Recent discoveries
and technical innovations in the field of genomics and biotechnology are revealing the full
complement of genes in crops, the ability to define genetic variation and use DNA markers to
follow chromosome segments with known functions through breeding programmes are leading to new
efficiencies in breeding. The ability to isolate and redesign genes and transfer them into different plants also
offers the breeder solutions to several key limitations. The convergence of advances in biologygenomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and information technologies is driving the emergence of a new bio-economy. By
the usage of this technology we have achieved remarkable success in increasing crop
productivity, improving crop quality as well as overcoming food shortage. Additionally the
genetically engineered crops have shown a remarkable potential to tackle some of the world’s most challenging
socioeconomic problems which are more prevalent in the developing world than in the industrialized nations.
Famine causes extinction
George Plumb, Environmental Activist, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?” 5/18/2008,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI
D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05
Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global
cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food
Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will
Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some
countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time
the problem will not be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year!
help.
Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods — mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal
feed. Poor
harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed.
High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from
growing food crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that
is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is
unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a
temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends
whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of
civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political
instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically,
threatening the very stability of civilization itself."
[Biodiversity impact]
Biodiversity loss risks extinction
Walsh 10 [Bryan, covers environment, energy and — when the need arises — particularly
alarming diseases for TIME magazine, Wildlife: A Global Convention on Biodiversity Opens in
Japan, But Can It Make a Difference? October 18, 2010
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/18/wildlife-a-global-convention-on-biodiversityopens-in-japan-but-can-it-make-a-difference/#ixzz131wU6CSp]
The story of non-human life on the planet Earth over the past few decades is a simple
one: loss. While there are always a few bright spots—including the recovery of threatened animals
like the brown pelican, thanks to the quietly revolutionary Endangered Species Act—on a planetary
scale biodiversity is steadily marching backwards, with extinctions rising and habitat
destroyed. Species as diverse as the tiger—less than 3,500 live in the wild today—to tiny frogs
could be gone forever if the trends keep heading downwards. In a bitterly ironic twist,
back in 2002 the United Nations declared that 2010 would be the international year of biodiversity,
and countries agreed to" achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the
global, regional and national level," as part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At
this paper in Science shows (download a PDF here), however, the world has utterly failed to reduce
the rate of biodiversity loss, and by just about every measurement, things are getting worse
all the time. (Read the Global Biodiversity Outlook if you really want to be depressed.) With that
cheery backdrop, representatives from nearly 200 nations are meeting in the Japanese city of
Nagoya—home to Toyota and not a whole lot else—for the 10th summit of the CBD, where they will
set new goals for reducing species loss and slowing habitat destruction. At the very least, they should
know how critical the biodiversity challenge is—as Japanese Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto
said in an opening speech:
All life on Earth exists thanks to the benefits from
biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air. We are now close to a
'tipping point' - that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity
loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do
not make proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the executive
secretary of the CBD, struck an even darker note, reminding diplomats that they were
on a clock—and time was running out:
Let's have the courage to look in the eyes of our
children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg
promise made by 110 heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010.
Let us look in the eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an
unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future. But what will actually come out of the Nagoya
summit, which will continue until Oct. 29? Most likely there will be another agreement—a new
protocol—outlining various global strategies on sustaining biodiversity and goals on slowing the rate
of species loss. (You can download a PDF of the discussion draft document that will be picked over at
Nagoya.) It won't be hard for governments to agree on general ambitions for reducing biodiversity
loss—who's against saving pandas?—but the negotiations will be much trickier on the question of
who will actually pay for a more biodiverse planet? And much as we've seen in international climate
change negotiations, the essential divide is between the developed and developing nations—and
neither side seems ready to bend. The reality is that much of the world's biodiversity—the most
fantastic species and the most complete forests—is found in the poorer, less developed parts of the
world. That's in part because the world's poor have been, well, too poor to develop the land around
them in the way rich nations have. (There was once a beautiful, undeveloped island off the East Coast
of the U.S., with wetlands and abundant forests. It was called Mannahatta. It's a little different now.)
As a result, the rural poor—especially in tropical nations—are directly dependent on healthy wildlife
and plants in a way that inhabitants of developed nations aren't. So on one hand that makes the poor
directly vulnerable when species are lost and forests are chopped down—which often results in
migration to thronging urban areas. But on the other, poverty often drives the rural poor to slash-and-
burn forests for agriculture, or hunt endangered species to sell for bush meat. Conservation and
development have to go hand in hand. That hasn't always been the mantra of the conservation
movement—as Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow writes in Slate, conservation projects in the past sometimes
displaced the human inhabitants over a reserve or park, privileging nature over people. But that's
changed in recent decades—environmental groups like Conservation International or the Nature
Conservancy now spend as much of their time working on development as they do in protecting
nature. "Save the people, save the wildlife"—that's the new mantra. The missing ingredient is
money—and that's what will be up for debate at Nagoya. As climate change has risen on the
international agenda, funding for biodiversity has lagged—the 33 member nations of the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) donated $8.5 billion for climate change
mitigation projects in 2008, but just $3 billion annually for biodiversity. One way to change that could
be through "payment for ecosystem services." A biodiverse landscape, intact forests, clean
water and air—all of these ebbing qualities of a healthy world are vital for our
economies as well. (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, a UN-funded study,
estimates that nature degradation costs the world $2 trillion to $5 trillion a year, with
the poorest nations bearing the brunt of the loss.) Rich countries could pay more biodiverse
developing nations to keep nature running—allowing poorer countries to capitalize on their natural
resources without slashing and burning. Will that work? I'm skeptical—the experience of climate
change negotiations have shown that the nations of the world are great at high ideals and fuzzy goals,
but not so hot at actually dividing up the pie in a more sustainable fashion. That doesn't mean there
aren't smaller solutions—like Costa Rica's just-announced debt-for-nature deal—but a big bang from
Japan this month doesn't seem too likely. The problem is as simple as it is unsolvable, at least so far—
there's no clear path to national development so far that doesn't take from the natural world. That
worked for rich nations, but we're rapidly running out of planet, as a report last week from the World
Wildlife Fund showed. And there's something greater at stake as well, as the naturalist E.O. Wilson
once put it:
The one process now going on that will take millions of years to
correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural
habitats-this is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us. We're losing
nature. And that loss really is forever.
Topicality
We meet
Haass 2000 (Richard, Summer 2000, Brooking Institute, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to
Punitive Policies”, pg
3,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000su
rvival.pdf, accessed 6-24-13, WP)
Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic
engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or
promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid. Other equally useful economic
incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high
tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target
country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank
among the most potent incentives in today’s global market. Similarly, political engagement can
involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the
scheduling of summits between leaders – or the termination of these benefits. Military
engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order
both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a country’s armed
forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign
military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state
institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-to-people contacts.
Funding non- governmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting
the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are
just some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.
That’s what science diplomacy includes
Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send
in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy”
http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/
While important for solving scientific problems and strengthening international cooperation,
these initiatives represent established cooperation among longstanding partners. The
uniqueness of President Obama’s “New Beginnings” science diplomacy initiative is its focus on
using science as a tool for engaging countries that are emerging from isolation or with which
political relations are strained. Science diplomacy involves dialogue, exchanges, and
eventually collaboration. It is a long process that requires creativity, patience, and
perseverance to achieve success.
Science diplomacy is economic engagement
Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send
in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy”
http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/
Third, scientists and engineers speak a common language that transcends political, cultural, and
economic boundaries. Whether working in the United States, scientists from Russia, Egypt, or
Indonesia understand and apply the same formulas and principles. They are driven by an
overwhelming interest to discover new knowledge and find solutions to some of today’s most
vexing problems. Their ability to forge new pathways of collaboration, often despite difficult
political environments, is a valuable tool for diplomacy. Furthermore, as we have seen all
around the world, when science and technology flourishes, so do economies.
Education about science diplomacy is important
Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send
in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy”
http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/
What is needed for science diplomacy to succeed? First, we must continue to educate the
international research community, policymakers, and the public about the importance of
science diplomacy. Earlier this year, CRDF Global joined with the Partnership for a Secure
America and the American Association for the Advancement of Science to highlight the
importance of science diplomacy.
***Relations***
2AC Mods
Democracy
Latin American ties are critical to expanding democracy
Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president
emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be
Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009.
http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf
Fourth, shared values in the Western Hemisphere, especially commitment to
fundamental human rights, including free political expression, effective democratic
governance, and consistent application of the rule of law. At a time when the very
difficult experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have discouraged many in the United States
about the prospects of expanding the international influence of U.S. ideals, the new administration recognizes that the
shared commitment throughout the Americas to the norms of democratic governance
and the rule of law is worth reinforcing. The Western Hemisphere remains a largely congenial
neighborhood for the United States in an unattractive broader international environment.
Democracy prevents global nuclear war.
Joshua Muravchik 7/11/01 (Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, www.npecweb.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm)
The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread
of democracy. In a famous article, and subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was
leading to "the end of history." By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also meant the
"diminution of the likelihood of large-scale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even
democracies are more
peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more
democratic. Neither point has gone unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international
tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that
relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. Democracies, he said, were slow to
anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by
the policy of "unconditional surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements
Democracies are not only slow to anger but
also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender,
America treated Japan and that part of Germany that it occupied with extraordinary generosity. In recent years a
burgeoning literature has discussed the peacefulness of democracies. Indeed the
proposition that democracies do not go to war with one another has been described
by one political scientist as being "as close as anything we have to an empirical law
in international relations." (3) Some of those who find enthusiasm for democracy off-putting have challenged this
America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong.
proposition, but their challenges have only served as empirical tests that have confirmed its robustness. For example, the
academic Paul Gottfried and the columnist-turned-politician Patrick J. Buchanan have both instanced democratic England's
declaration of war against democratic Finland during World War II. (4) In fact, after much procrastination, England did accede
to the pressure of its Soviet ally to declare war against Finland which was allied with Germany. But the declaration was purely
formal: no fighting ensued between England and Finland. Surely this is an exception that proves the rule. Continues… This
progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear
war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism
and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race
between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of
democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem
Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for
democracy may be still more remote.
Heg
U.S. influence in the region is critical to maintaining hegemony
Castañeda 8 - Global Distinguished Professor at New York University
Jorge G. Castañeda, was Foreign Minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. “Morning in Latin
America The Chance for a New Beginning”. Foreign Affairs 87 no5 126-39 S/O 2008.Wilson
Online.
The next U.S. president has a unique chance to bring up to date a relationship that is
ready to be substantially transformed for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt's Good
Neighbor Policy (John F. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was a good idea, but just that). Latin America today is
growing at a faster pace than at any time since the 1970s; it has consolidated and deepened its democratic roots like never
before and is more willing than ever to play a responsible role on the world stage. The
United States needs the
region dearly, as resistance to its world hegemony springs up everywhere and with
greater virulence than at any time since the end of World War II. Perhaps most important, as of
next year, Washington will be led by a president -- whether it is McCain or Obama -- with the best attributes in a generation
for dealing with Latin America's finest-ever batch of democratic, modernizing, progressive regional leaders -- from Calderón
to Bachelet, from Fernandez to Uribe, from Torrijos to Lula. If,
all together, they face up to these four
principal challenges, they may leave a greater mark on the hemispheric relationship
than any group of leaders in generation.
Heg is key to preserving a peaceful international order and preventing great
power wars
Kagan 12 (Robert, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and columnist for the Washington Post, “The importance
of U.S. military might shouldn’t be underestimated” February 2nd, 2012)
These days “soft” power and “smart” power are in vogue (who wants to make the case for “dumb” power?) while American
“hard” power is on the chopping block. This is, in part, a symbolic sacrifice to the fiscal crisis — even though the
looming
defense cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with the ballooning entitlement
spending that is not being cut. And partly this is the Obama administration’s election-year strategy of playing to
a presumably war-weary nation. But there is a theory behind all this: The United States has relied too much on hard power for
too long, and to be truly effective in a complex, modern world, the United States needs to emphasize other tools. It must be an
attractive power, capable of persuading rather than compelling. It must convene and corral both partners and non-partners,
using economic, diplomatic and other means to “leverage” American influence. These are sensible arguments. Power
takes many forms, and it’s smart to make use of all of them. But there is a danger in
taking this wisdom too far and forgetting just how important U.S. military power has
been in building and sustaining the present liberal international order. That order
has rested significantly on the U.S. ability to provide security in parts of the world,
such as Europe and Asia, that had known endless cycles of warfare before the arrival
of the United States. The world’s free-trade, free-market economy has depended on America’s ability to keep trade
routes open, even during times of conflict. And the remarkably wide spread of democracy around
the world owes something to America’s ability to provide support to democratic
forces under siege and to protect peoples from dictators such as Moammar Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic. Some
find it absurd that the United States should have a larger military than the next 10 nations combined. But that gap in
military power has probably been the greatest factor in upholding an international
system that, in historical terms, is unique — and uniquely beneficial to Americans.
Nor should we forget that this power is part of what makes America attractive to
many other nations. The world has not always loved America. During the era of Vietnam and
Watergate and the ugly last stand of segregationists, America was often hated . But nations that relied on the
United States for security from threatening neighbors tended to overlook the
country’s flaws. In the 1960s, millions of young Europeans took to the streets to protest American “imperialism,” while
their governments worked to ensure that the alliance with the United States held firm. Soft
power, meanwhile, has its
limits. No U.S. president has enjoyed more international popularity than Woodrow Wilson did when he traveled to
Paris to negotiate the treaty ending World War I. He was a hero to the world, but he found his ability to shape the
peace, and to establish the new League of Nations, severely limited, in no small part by his
countrymen’s refusal to commit U.S. military power to the defense of the peace. John F.
Kennedy, another globally admired president, found his popularity of no use in his confrontations with Nikita Khrushchev,
who, by Kennedy’s own admission, “beat the hell out of me” and who may have been convinced by his perception of Kennedy’s
weakness that the United States would tolerate his placing Soviet missiles in Cuba. The
international system is
not static. It responds quickly to fluctuations in power. If the United States were to cut
too deeply into its ability to project military power, other nations could be counted
on to respond accordingly. Those nations whose power rises in relative terms would display expanding ambitions
commensurate with their new clout in the international system. They would, as in the past, demand
particular spheres of influence. Those whose power declined in relative terms, like the United States, would
have little choice but to cede some influence in those areas. Thus China would lay claim to its sphere of
influence in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. And, as in the past, these
burgeoning great-power claims would overlap and conflict: India and China claim the
same sphere in the Indian Ocean; Russia and Europe have overlapping spheres in the
region between the Black Sea and the Baltic. Without the United States to suppress and contain
these conflicting ambitions, there would have to be complex adjustments to establish
a new balance. Some of these adjustments could be made through diplomacy, as they were sometimes in the past. Other
adjustments might be made through war or the threat of war, as also happened in the
past. The biggest illusion is to imagine that as American power declines, the world
stays the same. What has been true since the time of Rome remains true today: There can be no world
order without power to preserve it, to shape its norms, uphold its institutions, defend the sinews of its
economic system and keep the peace. Military power can be abused, wielded unwisely and ineffectively. It can be
deployed to answer problems that it cannot answer or that have no answer. But it is also essential. No nation or group of
nations that renounced power could expect to maintain any kind of world order. If the United States begins to look like a less
reliable defender of the present order, that order will begin to unravel. People might indeed find Americans very attractive in
this weaker state, but if the United States cannot help them when and where they need help the most, they will make other
arrangements.
Terror
Latin American cooperation checks terrorism and proliferation – antiterror
training, infosharing, and curbing proximate regional influence of Iran are vital
internal links.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,”
pg 12, ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in
Latin American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that
has a strong history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The
current US administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack
from a sovereign state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the
hands of terrorists has gone up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater
ease of access to the US border than Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue
providing antiterrorism training to key Latin American states, offer economic assistance and
encourage mutual cooperation and information sharing among allied states. Once this is
accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease to be a factor in the terrorist
activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation will help to diminish the
activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international groups such as Al
Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they develop a
stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that
overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be
left to their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also
be carefully monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the
technology and applied sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to
speed up its development. It has already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the
US must continue to solidify its relations with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage
any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats can continue to press that issue, it can curb
the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and end the political and diplomatic
connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other measure, the US must
ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the development and
defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the region
struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every
way possible.
Nuclear terrorism causes full-scale escalation – draws in Russia and China
Ayson, 2010 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and directs the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at Victoria
University, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:Envisaging Catalytic Effects” Published in the Studies for Conflict and Terrorism,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1057610X.2010.483756 p. 583-585)
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
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
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves.
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, 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
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
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
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
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
found itself unable or unwilling to provide.
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 nonuse 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.
State Failure
US leadership in Latin America necessary to contain escalatory instability and
make international institutions effective
Christopher Sabatini, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at
Americas Society/Council of the Americas, and Ryan Berger, policy associate at the Americas
Society/Council of the Americas, 6/13/2012, Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America,
globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latinamerica/
Speaking in Santiago, Chile, in March of last year, President Obama called Latin
America “a region on the move,” one that is
“more important to the prosperity and security of the United States than ever before.” Somebody
forgot to tell the Washington brain trust. The Center for a New American Security, a respected national security think tank a halfmile from the White House, recently released a new series of policy recommendations for the next presidential administration. The
70-page “grand strategy” report only contained a short paragraph on Brazil and made only one passing reference to Latin America.
Yes, we get it. The relative calm south of the United States seems to pale in comparison to other developments in the world: China
on a seemingly inevitable path to becoming a global economic powerhouse, the potential of political change in the Middle East, the
feared dismemberment of the eurozone, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea flaunting international norms and regional
stability. But the need to shore up our allies and recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’
changing role in the world and its strategic interests within it. Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its
strategic calculations: 1. Today, pursuing
a global foreign policy requires regional allies . Recently,
countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking positions diametrically
opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance and human rights. Take, for
example, Russia and China’s stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention. Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave
off the tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to
intervention in Libya, leading political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.” At a time of
(perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with regional
allies that might have been once taken for granted. As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for
permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. will need to integrate them into global
decision-making rather than isolate them. If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S.
as it tries to implement its foreign policy agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine
efforts to defend international norms and human rights. 2. Latin America is becoming more international.
the U.S. isn’t the only country that has clout in Latin America . For far too long,
U.S. officials and Latin America experts have tended to treat the region as separate, politically and
strategically, from the rest of the world. But as they’ve fought battles over small countries such as Cuba and Honduras and
It’s time to understand that
narrow bore issues such as the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement, other countries like China and India have increased their
economic presence and political influence in the region. It’s also clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present
their own challenges
to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum. The U.S. must
embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and strategy that it has for the rest of the world, rather than
just focus on human rights and development as it often does toward southern neighbors such as Cuba. 3. There are security
and strategic risks in the region. Hugo Chavez’s systematic deconstruction of the Venezuelan state and alleged ties
between FARC rebels and some of Chavez’s senior officials have created a volatile cocktail that could
explode south of the U.S. border . FARC, a left-wing guerrilla group based in Colombia, has been designated as a
“significant foreign narcotics trafficker” by the U.S. government. At the same time, gangs, narcotics traffickers and
transnational criminal syndicates are overrunning Central America. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe
Calderón launched a controversial “war on drugs” that has since resulted in the loss of over 50,000 lives and increased the levels of
violence and corruption south of the Mexican border in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and even once-peaceful Costa Rica.
Increasingly, these already-weak
states are finding themselves overwhelmed by the corruption and
violence that has come with the use of their territory as a transit point for drugs heading north. Given their proximity and
close historical and political connections with Washington, the U.S. will find it increasingly
difficult not to be drawn in . Only this case, it won’t be with or against governments — as it was in the 1980s — but in
the far more complex, sticky situation of failed states. There are many other reasons why Latin America
is important to U.S. interests. It is a market for more than 20% of U.S. exports. With the notable exception of Cuba, it is
nearly entirely governed by democratically elected governments — a point that gets repeated ad nauseum at every possible regional
meeting. The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on
Middle East supply. And through immigration, Latin America has close personal and cultural ties to the United States. These have
been boilerplate talking points since the early 1990s. But the
demands of the globe today are different, and they
warrant a renewed engagement with Latin America — a strategic pivot point for initiatives
the U.S. wants to accomplish elsewhere. We need to stop thinking of Latin America as the U.S. “backyard” that is
outside broader, global strategic concerns.
Latin American instability causes state failure - extinction
Manwaring 5
Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson
College, venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005,
pg. PUB628.pdf
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term
security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and
failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional
conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can
host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of
ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general
do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of
coercion and persuasion can
spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation,
disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and
proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing,
warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over
into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls
violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating
throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers
these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American
socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and
operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s
credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society.
Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin
American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular
perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given
regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with
these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of
subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away.
Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed
organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional
states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new
people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money,
arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the
longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and
the more they and their associated problems
endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65
narco-states and people’s democracies persist,
Poverty
US- Latin America Relations good- Key to solving poverty and inequality
Barshefsky et. al., senior international partner at WilmerHale in DC, 08,
(Charlene Barshefsky, R. Rand Beers, Alberto Coll, Margaret Crahan, Jose Fernandez, Francis
Fukuyama, Peter Hankim, James Hermon, John Heimann, James Hill, Donna Hrinak, James
Kimsey, Jim Kolbe, Kellie Meiman, Shannon O'Neil, Maria Otero, Arturo Porzecanski, David
Rothkopf, Julia Sweig, 5/2008, Council on Foreign Relations, “US- Latin America Relations: A New
Direction for a New Reality”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279,
6/30/2013) GM.
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States.¶ The region is the largest
foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of
alternative fuels. It is the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest
supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both
documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic,
and cultural—but also deep concerns.¶ This report makes clear that the era of the United States
as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown
stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has
also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result
is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.¶ At the same time Latin America
has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread,
economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have
struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.¶ The Council on
Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and
assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the
long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task
Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public
security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's
governments and citizens.¶ The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges
be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations,
governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and
Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the
countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering
stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
While we as individuals may not be responsible for the totality of these
circumstances, and while we may be powerless in some instances to change
overarching problems, to continue with everyday life without recognizing the
fundamentally unfair and immoral allocation of resources and taking actions to
solve us dooms us to catastrophe
Pierik 02 (Roland, Tillburg University Law School + Visiting Scholar, Department of Philosophy
@ Columbia University, "Book review, forthcoming in the Leiden Journal of International Law,"
http://www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/WPHR.pdf)
The chapters discuss a large variety of issues, but the central thought can be summarized as follows:
we, the governments
and citizens of affluent democracies, have a negative duty not to uphold a global structure
that violates human rights. Pogge’s position can be characterized as ‘moral institutional cosmopolitanism.’ Let me
elaborate this characterization by explaining the constituting parts.
First, Pogge explicates a moral instead of legal notion of human rights (53). His defense is inspired by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, especially art. 25 − claiming that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being −
and art. 28 − claiming that everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms of the UDHR can
be fully realized. Secondly, Pogge understands human rights not in an interactional but in an institutional way: On the interactional
understanding of human rights, governments and individuals have a responsibility not to violate human rights. On my institutional
understanding, by contrast, their responsibility is to work for an institutional order and public culture that ensure that all members
of society have secure access to the objects of their human rights. … By postulating a human right to X, one is asserting that any
society or other social system, insofar as this is reasonably possible, ought to be so (re)organized that all its members have secure
access to X .
Pogge explicitly understands human rights in an institutional way: human rights are primarily claims against coercive social
Pogge’s
defense is a cosmopolitan one, centering “on the fundamental needs and interests of human
beings and all human beings,” and emphasizing “that every human being has a global stature as
an ultimate unit of moral concern.” Pogge’s claim that we are not merely failing to help the
global poor but actually harming them, needs an additional argument, establishing our
responsibility for their fate. Central in this argument is the existence of a global order, in which all
institutions, and secondarily claims against individuals that uphold (and benefit from) such institutions. Finally,
national governments participate, along with international and supranational institutions like the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, World Bank,
and IMF.
To show why this global world order generates injustices Pogge presents three
disjunctive arguments, addressing the adherents of three different strands of Western political
thought. First, shared institutions. States are interconnected through a global network of market
trade and diplomacy. This shared institutional global order is shaped by the better-off, and
imposed on the worse-off. We impose a global institutional order that foreseeably and
avoidably reproduces severe and widespread poverty. This order is unjust if there is a feasible
institutional alternative under which such severe human rights deprivations would not persist.
(199-201). Second, uncompensated exclusion. The better-off enjoy significant advantages in
appropriating wealth from our planet, such as the use of a single natural resource base like
crude oil. The worse-off are largely, and without compensation, excluded from the gains of this appropriation (201-203). Third
violent history. The inequalities in the social starting positions of the better-off and the worseoff have emerged from a single historical process that was pervaded by massive, grievous
wrongs, such as a history of conquest and colonization with oppression and enslavement (203204). Pogge concludes that poverty in developing countries cannot be seen as disconnected
from our affluence. The existing global order, and the injustices it generates, implies that we
violate a negative duty not to harm the global poor, that is, not to violate their basic human
rights. This negative duty implies that Western governments should not impose an institutional order under which, foreseeably
and avoidably, individuals lack secure access to some of the objects of their human rights. Pogge criticizes the foreign policy of
Western societies, and especially their policies that shaped the global order, for having pushed their self-interest to the extreme. He
gives some examples: the negotiation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (125) and the WTO-regime (15-19), and concludes
that: Our new global economic order is so harsh on the global poor, then, because it is shaped in negotiations where our
representatives ruthlessly exploit their vastly superior bargaining power and expertise, as well as any weakness, ignorance, or
corruptibility they may find in their counterpart negotiators, to shape each agreement for our greatest benefit (20).
His complaint against the WTO regime is not that it opens markets too much, but that it opens our markets not enough and thereby
gains for us the benefits of free trade, while withholding them from the global poor (19). The idea that we might only have a
humanitarian duty is thus beside the point. We are harming the global poor by imposing an unjust global order, in which Western
societies close their markets by protectionist policies, massively subsidize the local agriculture, and introduce anti-dumping
measures in many of the sectors where developing countries are best able to compete, like agriculture, textiles and clothing. The
existing global institutional order is neither natural, nor God-given, but shaped and upheld by the more powerful governments and
The current global order produces a
stable pattern of widespread malnutrition and starvation, and there are alternative regimes
possible that would not produce similarly severe deprivations (176). It is the negative duty of
Western governments to aim for a global order under which basic human rights are not
by actors they control such as the EU, NATO, WTO, OECD, World Bank, and IMF.
violated, that is, a global order in which all individuals are able to meet their basic social and
economic needs. Of course, national governments primarily focus on the interests of their
own citizens, but they should not do so at the expense of gross human rights violations
abroad. Indeed, they can improve the circumstances of the globally worst-off and meet the
demands of justice without becoming badly-off themselves.
Warming
Latin American relations solve warming
Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president
emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be
Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009.
http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf
Apart from the scheduling coincidence that the Fifth Summit of the Americas was already on the calendar, the main
reason for the Obama administration’s early engagement with Latin America is the new
team’s perception that although the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean pose no urgent issues for the
United States, many of them are likely to be increasingly important to its future. This is so not
because of long-standing axioms about Western Hemisphere security, extra-hemispheric threats and Pan-American
solidarity, but rather for four much more contemporary reasons. First,
the increased perceived significance
of Latin America for confronting such transnational issues as energy security, global
warming, pollution and other environmental concerns, crime, narcotics and public
health. The new administration recognizes that these issues cannot be solved or even
managed effectively without close and sustained cooperation from many countries of
the Americas.
Warming is an existential threat
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and
Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate
Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending
on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual'
projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping
emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach
1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without
early and severe
reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twentyfirst century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world
- not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and
stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of
widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been
condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change
beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that
there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic
conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social,
cultural and political changes.
Relations I/L’s
Democracy
Latin American democracy solves global backsliding
Fauriol and Weintraub 95 – *director of the CSIS Americas program and **Prof of Public
Affairs at the University of Texas Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, "U.S. Policy,
Brazil, and the Southern Cone", Lexis
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 AsiaPacific 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 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 .
Latin American ties are critical to expanding democracy
Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president
emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be
Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009.
http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf
Fourth, shared values in the Western Hemisphere, especially commitment to
fundamental human rights, including free political expression, effective democratic
governance, and consistent application of the rule of law. At a time when the very
difficult experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have discouraged many in the United States
about the prospects of expanding the international influence of U.S. ideals, the new administration recognizes that the
shared commitment throughout the Americas to the norms of democratic governance
and the rule of law is worth reinforcing. The Western Hemisphere remains a largely congenial
neighborhood for the United States in an unattractive broader international environment.
Heg
Lack of relations leads to creeping influence of China – threaten U.S. hegemony.
Hakim 6 - President of the Inter-American Dialogue
Peter Hakim, “Is Washington Losing Latin America?”. Foreign Affairs 85 no1 39-53 Ja/F 2006.
Wiley Online.
Washington also worries about China's growing presence in Latin America, a concern that has
already been the subject of congressional hearings. In fact, some members of Congress view China as the most
serious challenge to U.S. interests in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They cite the huge
financial resources China is promising to bring to Latin America, its growing military-tomilitary relations in the region, and its clear political ambitions there all as potential
threats to the long-standing pillar of U.S. policy in the hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine. China's
interest in Latin America is significant and expanding. The region has become a vital source of raw materials and foodstuffs
for China. In the past six years, Chinese imports from Latin America have grown more than sixfold, or by nearly 6o percent a
year. Beijing also faces a major political challenge in the region: of the 26 countries that recognize Taiwan, 12 are in Latin
America or the Caribbean. China is intent on reducing that number through aggressive diplomacy and increased trade, aid,
and investment. Bush administration officials have watched China's growing commercial and political engagement in the
region closely. Chinese President Hu Jintao traveled to Latin America twice in the past two years, spending a total of 16 days
there. The White House could not have missed the warm welcome he received in the five Latin American countries he
visited, the concessions the host governments offered him (such as the quick granting of "market-economy status" to
China), and the enormous expectations his presence created of major Chinese investments in roads, ports, and other
infrastructure. Hu's trips have been reciprocated by a long series of visits to China by Latin American heads of state,
economic officials, and corporate leaders.
Many people in Latin America look to China as an
economic and political alternative to U.S. hegemony. Although officials in some of these countries are
concerned that China, with its lower manufacturing costs, will cut into their sales, profits, and investment, others (mainly
South America's food- and mineral-producing nations) largely see China as a major potential partner for new trade and
investment. Brazilian leaders, including President Lula, have said they want to establish a strategic relationship with Beijing
that might involve trade in high-tech products, mutual support in international organizations, and scientific and cultural
collaboration. Interestingly, the recent advances of China (and India as well) have prompted some Latin Americans to
examine their own economic and political development, producing a new wave of self-criticism about the region's
stumbling performance in recent years and intense discussion about what can be learned from the success of some Asian
countries.
U.S. influence in the region is critical to maintaining hegemony
Castañeda 8 - Global Distinguished Professor at New York University
Jorge G. Castañeda, was Foreign Minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. “Morning in Latin
America The Chance for a New Beginning”. Foreign Affairs 87 no5 126-39 S/O 2008.Wilson
Online.
The next U.S. president has a unique chance to bring up to date a relationship that is
ready to be substantially transformed for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt's Good
Neighbor Policy (John F. Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was a good idea, but just that). Latin America today is
growing at a faster pace than at any time since the 1970s; it has consolidated and deepened its democratic roots like never
before and is more willing than ever to play a responsible role on the world stage. The
United States needs the
region dearly, as resistance to its world hegemony springs up everywhere and with
greater virulence than at any time since the end of World War II. Perhaps most important, as of
next year, Washington will be led by a president -- whether it is McCain or Obama -- with the best attributes in a generation
for dealing with Latin America's finest-ever batch of democratic, modernizing, progressive regional leaders -- from Calderón
to Bachelet, from Fernandez to Uribe, from Torrijos to Lula. If,
all together, they face up to these four
principal challenges, they may leave a greater mark on the hemispheric relationship
than any group of leaders in generation.
Latin American wars go global – even absent escalation, they collapse
hegemony and encourage counterbalancing
Rochin, Professor of Political Science, 94
James, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, Discovering the Americas:
the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America, pp. 130-131
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more
important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the
Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region – which had some credibility in 19791984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political
repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to
U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on – were
linked to the prospect of explosive events
occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which
could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried
that in a worst-case scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central
America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the
extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important
hegemonic role in the international arena – a concern expressed by the director of research for Canada’s
Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate
increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations
which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the
next chapter.
Terror
Latin American cooperation checks terrorism and proliferation – antiterror
training, infosharing, and curbing proximate regional influence of Iran are vital
internal links.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,”
pg 12, ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in
Latin American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that
has a strong history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The
current US administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack
from a sovereign state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the
hands of terrorists has gone up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater
ease of access to the US border than Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue
providing antiterrorism training to key Latin American states, offer economic assistance and
encourage mutual cooperation and information sharing among allied states. Once this is
accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease to be a factor in the terrorist
activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation will help to diminish the
activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international groups such as Al
Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they develop a
stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that
overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be
left to their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also
be carefully monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the
technology and applied sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to
speed up its development. It has already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the
US must continue to solidify its relations with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage
any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats can continue to press that issue, it can curb
the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and end the political and diplomatic
connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other measure, the US must
ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the development and
defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the region
struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every
way possible.
Latin America plays key role in the war on terror
Hill 3 – Commander, United States Southern Command
General James T. Hill, Heritage Lecture #790, “Colombia: Key to Security in the Western
Hemisphere,” 6-2-2003, www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/HL790.cfm
Fighting Terrorism¶ The war on terrorism is my number one priority in the region. While the
primary front in this global war is in the Middle East, Southern Command plays a vital role fighting the malignancy here in
our hemisphere. We are increasingly engaging those who seek to exploit real and perceived weaknesses of our newest
democracies. Shoring
up our allies also serves to shore up our own homeland security. Given
our proximity and general ease of access, Latin America is a potentially vulnerable flank
of the homeland, providing many seams through which terrorists can infiltrate.¶ To our
south, just a short plane ride or Carnival Cruise away, radical Islamic groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiyya alGamat are active. These cells, extending from Trinidad and Tobago to the tri-border area of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil,
consist of logistics and support personnel. However, terrorists
who have planned or participated in
attacks in the Middle East, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, have transited the region.
These terrorist cells continue to reach back to the Middle East and solidify the global
support structure of international terrorism.¶ Beyond these extensions of Middle
Eastern extremism are three larger and better-armed groups, all originating in
Colombia. Many familiar with Colombia's conflict and most press accounts still romantically describe these illegal
groups as "revolutionaries," "guerrillas," "rebels," or "militias," lending them some kind of tacit legitimacy with those words.
I find these terms misleading and out-of-date. Simply put, these groups consist of criminals, more precisely defined as
narco-terrorists, who profit at the expense of Colombia and its people. These terrorists with their ideologically appealing
names--the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC; the National Liberation Army, or ELN; and the United
Defense Forces, or AUC--directly challenge the legitimate authority of the Colombian administration yet offer no viable
form of government themselves. Some of them have had 40 years to win the hearts and minds of their countrymen, yet
they garner no more than 3 percent public approval. All they have to offer is more innocent blood being spilt by their greed
for white powder profits.
State Failure
US leadership in Latin America necessary to contain escalatory instability and
make international institutions effective
Christopher Sabatini, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at
Americas Society/Council of the Americas, and Ryan Berger, policy associate at the Americas
Society/Council of the Americas, 6/13/2012, Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America,
globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latinamerica/
Speaking in Santiago, Chile, in March of last year, President Obama called Latin
America “a region on the move,” one that is
“more important to the prosperity and security of the United States than ever before.” Somebody
forgot to tell the Washington brain trust. The Center for a New American Security, a respected national security think tank a halfmile from the White House, recently released a new series of policy recommendations for the next presidential administration. The
70-page “grand strategy” report only contained a short paragraph on Brazil and made only one passing reference to Latin America.
Yes, we get it. The relative calm south of the United States seems to pale in comparison to other developments in the world: China
on a seemingly inevitable path to becoming a global economic powerhouse, the potential of political change in the Middle East, the
feared dismemberment of the eurozone, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea flaunting international norms and regional
stability. But the need to shore up our allies and recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’
changing role in the world and its strategic interests within it. Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its
strategic calculations: 1. Today, pursuing
a global foreign policy requires regional allies . Recently,
countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking positions diametrically
opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance and human rights. Take, for
example, Russia and China’s stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention. Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave
off the tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to
intervention in Libya, leading political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.” At a time of
(perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with regional
allies that might have been once taken for granted. As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for
permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. will need to integrate them into global
decision-making rather than isolate them. If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S.
as it tries to implement its foreign policy agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine
efforts to defend international norms and human rights. 2. Latin America is becoming more international.
the U.S. isn’t the only country that has clout in Latin America . For far too long,
U.S. officials and Latin America experts have tended to treat the region as separate, politically and
strategically, from the rest of the world. But as they’ve fought battles over small countries such as Cuba and Honduras and
It’s time to understand that
narrow bore issues such as the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement, other countries like China and India have increased their
economic presence and political influence in the region. It’s also clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present
their own challenges
to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum. The U.S. must
embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and strategy that it has for the rest of the world, rather than
just focus on human rights and development as it often does toward southern neighbors such as Cuba. 3. There are security
and strategic risks in the region. Hugo Chavez’s systematic deconstruction of the Venezuelan state and alleged ties
between FARC rebels and some of Chavez’s senior officials have created a volatile cocktail that could
explode south of the U.S. border . FARC, a left-wing guerrilla group based in Colombia, has been designated as a
“significant foreign narcotics trafficker” by the U.S. government. At the same time, gangs, narcotics traffickers and
transnational criminal syndicates are overrunning Central America. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe
Calderón launched a controversial “war on drugs” that has since resulted in the loss of over 50,000 lives and increased the levels of
violence and corruption south of the Mexican border in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and even once-peaceful Costa Rica.
Increasingly, these already-weak
states are finding themselves overwhelmed by the corruption and
violence that has come with the use of their territory as a transit point for drugs heading north. Given their proximity and
close historical and political connections with Washington, the U.S. will find it increasingly
difficult not to be drawn in . Only this case, it won’t be with or against governments — as it was in the 1980s — but in
the far more complex, sticky situation of failed states. There are many other reasons why Latin America
is important to U.S. interests. It is a market for more than 20% of U.S. exports. With the notable exception of Cuba, it is
nearly entirely governed by democratically elected governments — a point that gets repeated ad nauseum at every possible regional
meeting. The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on
Middle East supply. And through immigration, Latin America has close personal and cultural ties to the United States. These have
been boilerplate talking points since the early 1990s. But the
demands of the globe today are different, and they
warrant a renewed engagement with Latin America — a strategic pivot point for initiatives
the U.S. wants to accomplish elsewhere. We need to stop thinking of Latin America as the U.S. “backyard” that is
outside broader, global strategic concerns.
Poverty
US- Latin America Relations good- Key to solving poverty and inequality
Barshefsky et. al., senior international partner at WilmerHale in DC, 08,
(Charlene Barshefsky, R. Rand Beers, Alberto Coll, Margaret Crahan, Jose Fernandez, Francis
Fukuyama, Peter Hankim, James Hermon, John Heimann, James Hill, Donna Hrinak, James
Kimsey, Jim Kolbe, Kellie Meiman, Shannon O'Neil, Maria Otero, Arturo Porzecanski, David
Rothkopf, Julia Sweig, 5/2008, Council on Foreign Relations, “US- Latin America Relations: A New
Direction for a New Reality”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279,
6/30/2013) GM.
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States.¶ The region is the largest
foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of
alternative fuels. It is the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest
supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both
documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic,
and cultural—but also deep concerns.¶ This report makes clear that the era of the United States
as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown
stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has
also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result
is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.¶ At the same time Latin America
has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread,
economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have
struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.¶ The Council on
Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and
assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the
long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task
Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public
security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's
governments and citizens.¶ The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges
be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations,
governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and
Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the
countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering
stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
Econ
US-Latin American science cooperation is key to successful economic integration,
eliminating poverty and sustainable growth
Ventura 05 (Arnoldo K, Adviser to the Prime Minister of
Jamaica, http://www.scidev.net/global/opinion/cooperation-is-key-to-scientific-growth-in-theame.html
The will to forge partnerships in science and technology between strong and weak
economies has been more evident in the European Union and Asian trading blocs than in
other parts of the world. As a result, these regions have begun to show more economic
coherence and vitality than the American hemisphere, even though our region has some of
the world’s most knowledge-based economies. Economic integration has long been called for in
our hemisphere. But progress has been slow partly because of the great disparities in science
and technology between adjacent states. In contrast to the European and South-East Asian
blocs, which are well organised and have made substantial regional investments in science and
technology, we in the Americas have not yet got our act together. In particular , the stronger
economies in the region have not yet seen the merits of significantly improving the
general state of science and technology , even though this underpins the economic prospects
of the whole hemisphere. Yet it is difficult to see how to improve conditions within our
hemisphere without enhancing science and technology at the regional level. Weak states
need to be able to supply better products and services, thus increasing their purchasing
power. This cannot be done without building high quality science, technology, engineering
and innovation. Unfortunately, if nations already facing severe development challenges are
left to do this on their own, their situation will only get worse. Poverty now grips over half
of the American hemisphere, and has become the greatest threat to the development of
states in our region. Science and technology must therefore be shared in order to allow
countries to build competence in areas in which they can become globally competitive.
Environment
Latin American relations solve warming
Lowenthal 9 - professor of international relations at the University of Southern California
Abraham F. Lowenthal, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, president
emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and the founding director of the InterAmerican Dialogue. “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Will the Promising Start Be
Sustained?”. NUEVA SOCIEDAD NRO. 222. July-August 2009.
http://www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/3617_2.pdf
Apart from the scheduling coincidence that the Fifth Summit of the Americas was already on the calendar, the main
reason for the Obama administration’s early engagement with Latin America is the new
team’s perception that although the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean pose no urgent issues for the
United States, many of them are likely to be increasingly important to its future. This is so not
because of long-standing axioms about Western Hemisphere security, extra-hemispheric threats and Pan-American
solidarity, but rather for four much more contemporary reasons. First,
the increased perceived significance
of Latin America for confronting such transnational issues as energy security, global
warming, pollution and other environmental concerns, crime, narcotics and public
health. The new administration recognizes that these issues cannot be solved or even
managed effectively without close and sustained cooperation from many countries of
the Americas.
Key to clean energy transition
Zedillo et al. 8
Ernesto Zedillo, Commission co-chair; Former President of Mexico, Thomas R. Pickering,
Commission co-chair; Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Members of the
Partnership for the Americas Commission, Mauricio Cárdenas, Director of the Commission;
Senior Fellow and Director, Latin America Initiative, Brookings, and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz,
Deputy Director of the Commission; Political Economy Fellow, Global Economy and
Development, Brookings. Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission. The Brookings
Institution. November 2008. “Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations A Hemispheric
Partnership for a Turbulent World”.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership/11
24_latin_america_partnership.pdf
Addressing the challenge of energy security will require making energy consumption
more efficient and developing new energy sources, whereas addressing the challenge of
climate change will require finding ways to control carbon emissions, helping the world
shift away from carbon-intensive energy generation, and adapting to some aspects of changing
ecosystems. Potential solutions to these problems exist in the Americas, but mobilizing
them will require a sustained hemispheric partnership. Latin America has enormous
potential to help meet the world’s growing thirst for energy, both in terms of
hydrocarbons and alternative fuels. Latin America has about 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.
Venezuela accounts for most of these, though Brazil’s oil reserves could increase from 12 to 70 billon barrels if recent
discoveries can be developed. Bolivia is an important producer of natural gas, Mexico
has great potential in
solar energy generation, and several countries in the region could potentially produce
much more hydroelectric power. Brazil is a world leadeer in sugarcane-based ethanol
production, and the United States is a leader in corn-based ethanol (figure 3). Solar and wind power,
particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, remain underdeveloped. To expand the
hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be required. Major investments in oil production
(especially deep offshore), refining, and distribution will be needed to achieve the region’s potential. Developing the Tupi
project in Brazil alone will cost $70–240 billion. Liquefied natural gas will become an important source of energy, but not
before major investments are made in infrastructure to support liquefaction, regasification, transport, and security. U.S.
and Canadian electricity networks, which are already highly integrated, can be further integrated with Mexico’s. Mexico
also plans to connect its grid to those of Guatemala and Belize, eventually creating an integrated power market in Central
America. Power integration in South America will demand even larger investments in generation, transmission, and
distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and does not require fossil fuel imports.
However,
efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets
face a variety of obstacles. Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over
pricing and ownership. Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional
cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The security of the energy infrastructure, especially
pipelines, remains a concern in Mexico and parts of South America. Gas, oil, and electricity subsidies distort patterns of
production and consumption, and they are triggering protectionist behavior elsewhere. Technology
on
renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized and disseminated.
Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among hemispheric
partners.
Terminal !’s
Democracy
Democracy prevents global nuclear war.
Joshua Muravchik 7/11/01 (Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, www.npecweb.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm)
The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread
of democracy. In a famous article, and subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was
leading to "the end of history." By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also meant the
"diminution of the likelihood of large-scale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even
democracies are more
peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more
democratic. Neither point has gone unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international
tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that
relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. Democracies, he said, were slow to
anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by
the policy of "unconditional surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements
Democracies are not only slow to anger but
also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender,
America treated Japan and that part of Germany that it occupied with extraordinary generosity. In recent years a
burgeoning literature has discussed the peacefulness of democracies. Indeed the
proposition that democracies do not go to war with one another has been described
by one political scientist as being "as close as anything we have to an empirical law
in international relations." (3) Some of those who find enthusiasm for democracy off-putting have challenged this
America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong.
proposition, but their challenges have only served as empirical tests that have confirmed its robustness. For example, the
academic Paul Gottfried and the columnist-turned-politician Patrick J. Buchanan have both instanced democratic England's
declaration of war against democratic Finland during World War II. (4) In fact, after much procrastination, England did accede
to the pressure of its Soviet ally to declare war against Finland which was allied with Germany. But the declaration was purely
formal: no fighting ensued between England and Finland. Surely this is an exception that proves the rule. Continues… This
progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear
war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism
and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race
between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of
democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem
Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for
democracy may be still more remote.
Heg
Refer to Heg Core
Terror
A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange
Speice 06
06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary [Patrick F. Speice, Jr., “NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION:
ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,” William
& Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427]edlee
Accordingly, there
is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear
device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era
nuclear security measures. 39Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one
intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or
[buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening,
however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own.
Very little
material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are
extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer
number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States
makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was
built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place
are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the
rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least
35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized
somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to
retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material
to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear
knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A
terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human
and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States
to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of
casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by
terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face
and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks
against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the
likelihood that regional
conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear terrorism causes full-scale escalation – draws in Russia and China
Ayson, 2010 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and directs the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at Victoria
University, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:Envisaging Catalytic Effects” Published in the Studies for Conflict and Terrorism,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1057610X.2010.483756 p. 583-585)
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
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
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves.
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, 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
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
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
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 nonuse 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.
A NEW WMD TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE U.S. WILL TRIGGER RETALIATION THAT
WILL KILL 100 MILLION PEOPLE
Greg Easterbrook, senior editor with THE NEW REPUBLIC, November 2001, p.
www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html. (UNDRG/C324)
Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if
I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the
if an
atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like
it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear
bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries.
Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because
THIS WILL ESCALATE TO MASS EXTINCTION VIA GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, 2004
[Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further
exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in
on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights,
tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would
proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world
order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead
to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends
when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When
nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
State Failure
Latin American instability causes state failure - extinction
Manwaring 5
Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson
College, venezuela’s hugo chávez, bolivarian socialism, and asymmetric warfare, October 2005,
pg. PUB628.pdf
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term
security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and
failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional
conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can
host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of
ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general
do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of
coercion and persuasion can
spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation,
disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and
proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing,
warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over
into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls
violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating
throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers
these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American
socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and
operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s
credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society.
Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin
American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular
perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given
regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with
these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of
subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away.
Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed
organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional
states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new
people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money,
arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the
longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and
narco-states and people’s democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems
endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65
State failure causes global disease and WMD conflict
Emmott ‘3,
Bill, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, 2003, 20:21 Vision, pp. 265-266, 277-278
There are other self-serving reasons to be worried about inequality and its handmaiden, poverty. One is that a poorer country is
more likely to have weak
political and social institutions, which are then more likely to collapse into
chaos or civil war. That is especially likely when the country is poor in terms of the direct economic activity of its citizenry but
is nevertheless home to some valuable natural resources, such as the diamonds of Sierra Leone. Forces within, and forces from
outside, are liable to fight to get their hands on those resources. Chaos and civil war are essentially local troubles that need not
affect the rest of the world, but they are liable
to draw in neighbors, risking a wider regional conflict as
countries or factions vie to exploit the vacuum left in the collapsing state. Poorer, unstable countries are also likely to harbor
and to foster two other ills: disease and terrorism. Disease may well contribute to poverty rather than being a
consequence of it, but it is also the case that a poor country [are] likely to lack the infrastructure as well as money
to be able to deal with epidemic diseases such as the human irumunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS, or
Ebola, and those diseases might then be able to spread(.) across other borders. The danger of terrorism is more
obvious: discontented, otherwise hopeless people may wish to take out their sense of grievance on the luckier rich, and will be likely
to find plenty of willing recruits for dangerous or even suicidal terrorist missions. The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001
confirm this only indirectly, since the terrorists concerned were neither poor nor hopeless. But they and their followers did, it seems,
feel that Islamic countries in general were poor and lacking in hope, following centuries of humiliation at the hands of the West. And
the argument applies directly to Afghanistan: if that country had not been dirt-poor, it would have been unlikely to have acted as a
host to the al-Qaeda terrorists. Rich countries can give rise to terrorism too, even without the separatist movements found in the
Basque Country and Northern Ireland; Germany had its Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1970s, Italy its Red Brigades, and even America
had the Symbionese Liberation Front. But they have not been numerous enough to pose a danger to their governments or to any
other country. Poverty and despair act as a more powerful recruiting sergeant for terrorists than do mere alienation or beliefs in
countries which feel that they
are unable to advance their living standards and sense of power by conventional economic means
may be tempted to use military methods as a shortcut. As a general proposition, this argument is
anarchism. Other people worry about inequality because of a fear of war: the fear that
unconvincing, for a poorer country is also often militarily weak, though that still made the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact countries a
formidable enemy to NATO during the cold war. By and large, however, the rich will always be able to defeat poor countries in
anything other than a guerrilla war—and such fighting methods may be common in civil wars or m wars of liberation, but they do
not put other countries themselves in physical danger, except from terrorism. But in some circumstances this argument may hold
good. North Korea, for example, has long used the threat of military attack either on its southern compatriot, or on Japan or the
United States, as a means by which to blackmail the rich. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 in order to grab its oil as well as merely to
make a territorial point. Inequality, in other words, may
lead to an increase in the number of unpredictable
dictators— slightly euphemistically known as rogue states (even more euphemistically known, by America's State Department, as
"states of concern"). These rogues have become more dangerous as technology has advanced sufficiently to make long-range
missiles cheap enough to buy and develop, and to use as a threat. They could become extremely
the means to develop and deploy nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons.
deadly if any obtain
Poverty
Poverty is the equivalent to a would-be thermonuclear war between the
former-USSR and the US every 15 years.
James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School, VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS ON
OUR DEADLIEST EPIDEMIC, 2000, p 195-196.
The 14 to 18 million deaths a year cause by structural violence compare with about 100,000
deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural
violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World
War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide-or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps
575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical
nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear that even war
cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other
word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as
would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to
three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi
genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing,
unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and
poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
Global survival depends on ensuring Third World poverty alleviation—this is a
moral and a practical imperative
Solo 92 (Executive Director of Cultural Survival, "Who Do We Think We Are," Cultural Studies
Quarterly, Spring, http://www.cs.org/publications/csq/csq-article.cfm?id=552)
That questions is particularly potent now that the Cold War is over. In the Third World, centuries of colonialism
and decades of superpower rivalry have left a damaging legacy. Southern countries and other
peoples victimized by colonial expansion and its consequent political and economic systems are
intensifying their calls for justice, not charity. The challenge is made even more difficult because a major export of
the developed world has been the concept of the nation state, with its emphasis on militarization and internal security.
On the positive side, one lesson to be drawn from the collapse of communism is that grassroots politics can lead to revolutionary
changes in governments and institutions of all kinds. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, new thinking, developed and
embraced first by local actors, opened up political possibilities on an international scale.
As the next millennium approaches, Cultural Survival hopes to take that lesson toward a second wave of political action that will help
turn around relations between North and South, just as ordinary citizens helped reverse the tide of East-West relations. But while
Western movements have focused on the weapons of war, the politics of the 1990s will center on a single interlocking agenda:
human rights, the environment, and development. As its heart are some 600 million indigenous people.
Their fate is a
pathway and litmus test of our progress toward a peaceful and sustainable world order. From
the periphery of political, economic, and social power, they are moving to the center of world attention. Our survival
depends on ensuring that no one, particularly the poorest of the poor, is thrown out of the
canoe or viewed as dispensable. This is a moral and a practical imperative.
Ongoing global poverty outweighs nuclear war and genocide—only our impact
evidence is comparative
Spina 00 (Stephanie Urso, Ph.D. candidate in social/personality psychology at the Graduate
School of the City University of New York, Smoke and Mirrors: The Hidden Context of Violence in
Schools and Society, p. 201)
This sad fact is not limited to the United States. Globally, 18 million deaths a year are caused by
structural violence, compared to 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. That is,
approximately every five years, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be
killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths, and every single year, two to three
times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi
genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing,
unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war or genocide, perpetuated on the weak and
the poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. (See James Gilligan, Violence:
Reflections on a National Epidemic, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 196).
We have a moral obligation to eliminate extreme poverty as it dehumanizes its
victims
Sengendo 2008 [Ahmad Kawesa, Rector at University of Uganda] http://www.e
astsym.org/documents/
P1Kawesa_CentralityofSTI.pdf.
As Jack DeGioia of Georgetown University put it, “The
moral challenge of our times is to eliminate
extreme poverty.” Socio-economic transformation remains a mirage as long as the majority
of our people continue to live in abject poverty. Poor people have no capacity to benefit
from the great opportunities that advances in S&T as well as R&D may put on their door steps.
Poverty is dehumanizing and cheats its victims of the minimum positive self-image and
self-confidence necessary to face life’s challenges
While we as individuals may not be responsible for the totality of these
circumstances, and while we may be powerless in some instances to change
overarching problems, to continue with everyday life without recognizing the
fundamentally unfair and immoral allocation of resources and taking actions to
solve us dooms us to catastrophe
Pierik 02 (Roland, Tillburg University Law School + Visiting Scholar, Department of Philosophy
@ Columbia University, "Book review, forthcoming in the Leiden Journal of International Law,"
http://www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/WPHR.pdf)
The chapters discuss a large variety of issues, but the central thought can be summarized as follows:
we, the governments
and citizens of affluent democracies, have a negative duty not to uphold a global structure
that violates human rights. Pogge’s position can be characterized as ‘moral institutional cosmopolitanism.’ Let me
elaborate this characterization by explaining the constituting parts.
First, Pogge explicates a moral instead of legal notion of human rights (53). His defense is inspired by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, especially art. 25 − claiming that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being −
and art. 28 − claiming that everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms of the UDHR can
be fully realized. Secondly, Pogge understands human rights not in an interactional but in an institutional way: On the interactional
understanding of human rights, governments and individuals have a responsibility not to violate human rights. On my institutional
understanding, by contrast, their responsibility is to work for an institutional order and public culture that ensure that all members
of society have secure access to the objects of their human rights. … By postulating a human right to X, one is asserting that any
society or other social system, insofar as this is reasonably possible, ought to be so (re)organized that all its members have secure
access to X .
Pogge explicitly understands human rights in an institutional way: human rights are primarily claims against coercive social
Pogge’s
defense is a cosmopolitan one, centering “on the fundamental needs and interests of human
beings and all human beings,” and emphasizing “that every human being has a global stature as
an ultimate unit of moral concern.” Pogge’s claim that we are not merely failing to help the
global poor but actually harming them, needs an additional argument, establishing our
institutions, and secondarily claims against individuals that uphold (and benefit from) such institutions. Finally,
responsibility for their fate. Central in this argument is the existence of a global order, in which all
national governments participate, along with international and supranational institutions like the UN, EU, NATO, WTO, World Bank,
and IMF.
To show why this global world order generates injustices Pogge presents three
disjunctive arguments, addressing the adherents of three different strands of Western political
thought. First, shared institutions. States are interconnected through a global network of market
trade and diplomacy. This shared institutional global order is shaped by the better-off, and
imposed on the worse-off. We impose a global institutional order that foreseeably and
avoidably reproduces severe and widespread poverty. This order is unjust if there is a feasible
institutional alternative under which such severe human rights deprivations would not persist.
(199-201). Second, uncompensated exclusion. The better-off enjoy significant advantages in
appropriating wealth from our planet, such as the use of a single natural resource base like
crude oil. The worse-off are largely, and without compensation, excluded from the gains of this appropriation (201-203). Third
violent history. The inequalities in the social starting positions of the better-off and the worseoff have emerged from a single historical process that was pervaded by massive, grievous
wrongs, such as a history of conquest and colonization with oppression and enslavement (203204). Pogge concludes that poverty in developing countries cannot be seen as disconnected
from our affluence. The existing global order, and the injustices it generates, implies that we
violate a negative duty not to harm the global poor, that is, not to violate their basic human
rights. This negative duty implies that Western governments should not impose an institutional order under which, foreseeably
and avoidably, individuals lack secure access to some of the objects of their human rights. Pogge criticizes the foreign policy of
Western societies, and especially their policies that shaped the global order, for having pushed their self-interest to the extreme. He
gives some examples: the negotiation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (125) and the WTO-regime (15-19), and concludes
that: Our new global economic order is so harsh on the global poor, then, because it is shaped in negotiations where our
representatives ruthlessly exploit their vastly superior bargaining power and expertise, as well as any weakness, ignorance, or
corruptibility they may find in their counterpart negotiators, to shape each agreement for our greatest benefit (20).
His complaint against the WTO regime is not that it opens markets too much, but that it opens our markets not enough and thereby
gains for us the benefits of free trade, while withholding them from the global poor (19). The idea that we might only have a
humanitarian duty is thus beside the point. We are harming the global poor by imposing an unjust global order, in which Western
societies close their markets by protectionist policies, massively subsidize the local agriculture, and introduce anti-dumping
measures in many of the sectors where developing countries are best able to compete, like agriculture, textiles and clothing. The
existing global institutional order is neither natural, nor God-given, but shaped and upheld by the more powerful governments and
The current global order produces a
stable pattern of widespread malnutrition and starvation, and there are alternative regimes
possible that would not produce similarly severe deprivations (176). It is the negative duty of
Western governments to aim for a global order under which basic human rights are not
violated, that is, a global order in which all individuals are able to meet their basic social and
economic needs. Of course, national governments primarily focus on the interests of their
own citizens, but they should not do so at the expense of gross human rights violations
abroad. Indeed, they can improve the circumstances of the globally worst-off and meet the
demands of justice without becoming badly-off themselves.
by actors they control such as the EU, NATO, WTO, OECD, World Bank, and IMF.
Furthermore, given this ethical responsibility, we have an infinite responsibility
to act in the face of poverty. If rejecting the Aff is not necessary to prevent the
disad impact, then the Aff is still the most morally preferable option
Gert 04 (Bernie, Prof of Philosophy @ Dartmouth, Common Morality: Deciding What to Do, pg.
69)
This feature is often simply included as part of features 2 and 5, which are concerned with the
harms and benefits that are caused, avoided, and prevented. But it is not merely the
consequences of alternative policies that are morally relevant. An alternative action or policy
may be morally preferable to the action being considered because it does not violate a moral
rule. Paternalistic deception, which might be justified if there were no nonpaternalistic
alternatives, is not justified if there is a preferable alternative, such as taking time to persuade
citizens or patients rather than deceiving them. Explicit awareness of this feature may lead
people to try to find out if there are any alternative actions that either would not involve a
violation of a moral rule or would involve causing much less harm.
Poverty, not military adventurism, rogue nations, or terrorism, poses the
greatest threat to US and global interests—we have a moral and legal
obligation to eradicate it from society
Vear 04 (Jesse Leah, Co-coordinates POWER--Portland Organizing to Win Economic Rights,
"Abolishing Poverty: A Declaration of Economic Human Rights,"
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0407/040704.htm)
In resisting empire, I share with all of you a common cause and a common urgency, yet having seen and
experienced conditions of poverty lends my voice a special urgency today. For I may not know a whole lot about the US Space
I do know first hand about the immense human misery and
suffering that plagues the surface of the earth down here below. And I know that it would take a
pittance of what is spent on this nation's militaristic endeavors to end this human suffering and
ensure a decent standard of living for every man, woman, and child. And I also know that while our nation
program and the role of weapons in space, but
contemplates sending missions to Mars to probe for any signs of life, the leaders of this same nation couldn't care less about the
lives right here on this planet - indeed the lives right here in our nation's own Capitol, in the shadow of the Washington Monument
and the halls of Congress, lives shuddering with hunger and sickness and desperation. These are things I know all too well. I've heard
about the "need" for an advanced missile defense system. I hear this kind of talk and I think to myself, yes, if only we could have
some sort of defense system! Millions and millions of Americans cry out for security! For every war our nation wages across the
globe, there is a war raging right here in our own society - a seemingly endless, silent war being waged against us - the most
vulnerable, defenseless members of society. People like me. Yet no missile defense system will prevent our enemy from striking.
Our enemy is neither deterred by the world's largest army, with its overstuffed arsenal of
missiles and bombs and tanks and warships, nor is it kept at bay by the legions of armed sentries
patrolling our borders. Our enemy does not come in the form of foreign terrorists or so-called
rogue nations. Armed with the mere stroke of a pen, our enemy comes in the form of years and years of national policies that
would rather see us starve than invest even a portion of our nation's wealth in our welfare. Locked in the cross-hairs of
domestic and foreign policies which intentionally put our bodies in harm's way, our terror is
the terror of poverty - a terror boldly and callously proliferated by our own government. Surely one doesn't need the
surveillance powers of high-definition weapons-grade satellites to see the faces of the some 80 million poor people struggling just to
survive in America; to see the worried faces of homeless mothers waiting to be added to the waiting list for non-existent public
housing; to find the unemployment lines filled with parents who aren't eligible to see a doctor and who can't afford to get sick; to
see the children stricken with preventable diseases in the midst of the world's best-equipped hospitals; to hear the rumble in the
bellies of millions of hungry Americans whose only security is a bread line once a week; or to detect the crumbling of our nation's
under-funded, under-staffed schools. Meanwhile, billions are spent waging wars and occupying countries that our school children
can't even find on a map.
Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the moral bankruptcy of a
nation - by far the world's richest and most powerful - which disregards the basic human needs
of its own despairing people in favor of misguided military adventures that protect no one, whether in nations half-way across the
globe, or in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. To see these things one needs neither a high-powered satellite nor a specialized
degree. One needs only to open one's eyes and dare to see the reality before them. Yet even as you look you still might not see the
millions of poor people in America. My face is only one of 80 million Americans who never get asked for in-depth television
interviews or for our expert commentary regarding the state of the economy or the impact of our nation's policies. In addition to all
the indignities suffered by poor people in America, we must suffer the further indignation of being disappeared - kept discretely
hidden away from the eyes, ears, and conscience of the rest of society and the world. The existence of poverty in the richest country
on earth cannot remain a secret for long. Americans, like the majority of the world's peoples, are compassionate, fair-minded
people. When exposed, the moral hypocrisy of poverty in America cannot withstand the light of day any more than the moral
hypocrisy of slavery or race or sex discrimination could. That's where the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign comes in.
we are reaching out to the international community as well as the rest of US
society to help us secure what are our most basic human rights, as outlined in International Law. According
With this campaign,
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an International Treaty signed in 1948 by all UN member nations, including the United
States,
all nations have a moral and legal obligation to ensure the basic needs and well-being of
all their citizens. Among the rights outlined in the Declaration are the rights to food, housing, health care, jobs at living wages,
and education. Over half a century after signing this document, despite huge economic gains and a vast productive capacity, the
United States has sorely neglected its promise. In a land whose founding documents proclaim life, liberty, and
justice for all, we must hold this nation to its promises. And so, armed only with the force of International law and
the force of our convictions, thousands of homeless, working poor, and unemployed families and individuals from all across this
great nation are coming together to take part in this campaign and form what Dr. Martin Luther King called "a multi-racial
as Dr. King once said: "The curse of poverty has no justification in
our age… The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct, and immediate
abolition of poverty."
nonviolent army of poor people." For
Growth
Growth reduces conflict, while downswings greatly increase risk of war
Paul Collier, director, Development Research Group at the World Bank; professor of economics
at Oxford, 2000, in Greed and Grievance, ed. Berdal and Malone, pp. 97-98
The only result that supports the grievance approach to conflict is that a prior period of rapid
economic decline increases the risk of conflict. Each 5 percent of annual growth rate has about
the same effect as a year of education for the population in reducing the risk of conflict. Thus,
a society in which the economy is growing by 5 percent is around 40 percent safer than one
that is declining by 5 percent, other things equal. Presumably, growth gives hope, whereas rapid
decline may galvanize people into action. Inequality, whether measured in terms of income or
landownership, has no effect on the risk of conflict according to the data. This is, of course, surprising
given the attention inequality has received as an explanation of conflict. The results cannot, however, be
lightly dismissed. For example, the measures of inequality have proved to be significant in explaining
economic growth and so are evidenfly not so noisy as to lack explanatory power. Nor is our result
dependent upon a particular specification. Anke Hoeffler and I have experimented with well over a
hundred variants of our core specification, and in none of these is inequality a significant cause of
conflict. (By contrast, primary commodity exports are always significant.)
Growth is key to peaceful conflict resolution and prevention
Indra de Soysa, senior research associate at the International Peace Research Institute, 2000,
in Greed and Grievance, ed. Berdal and Malone, p. 126
The question is, How can a country escape from resource dependence and manage to innovate?
Economic growth is vital because the raising of per capita income proxies innovative
capabilities. Bringing about economic growth through development assistance is one obvious
answer. Countries with higher per capita wealth are far less likely to suffer internal conflict
and are more likely to exhibit strong democracy—which is widely seen as promoting peace
and conflict resolution. Thus, renewed efforts at promoting economic growth and democratic
institutions seem to be the best long-term strategy for creating what UNESCO has termed “a
culture of peace” in the developing world.
Growth solves international conflicts – interdependence key
Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University; Senior Fellow of the
Brookings Institution, 1992 / 1993 Foreign Affairs
But slow growth in the world economy now makes the danger of a reversion to beggar-thyneighbor policies a real one. Some see the three major economic powers -- the United States, Germany and Japan -- riding in different directions
the interdependence resulting from economic integration has
greatly reduced the effective autonomy of even large national economies. Nations have
found that their policies are now less potent domestically, affect other countries more
strongly and produce sharp and often unwelcome changes in the trade and payments
balances and exchange rates that link them with others. n11 See Jeffrey E. Garten, A Cold Peace: America, Japan,
and threatening to pull the world economy apart. But
Germany, and the Struggle for Supremacy, a Twentieth Century Fund Book, Times Books, 1992. In this changed world, cooperation among the major economies in
policymaking has become increasingly important. But there are no technical solutions to the economic problems the world is facing. What is most needed is the political will
-- the will of the United States, Germany, Japan and other major industrial countries to deal more effectively with their own problems and the will of all the major developed
. The most important challenge for economic cooperation in the years
ahead will be to keep the world economy growing at a vigorous and sustainable pace. With
real economic growth the serious problems of world debt, unbalanced trade, currency
disequilibrium and unemployment -- as well as the social, ethnic, racial and nationalist
tensions and the violence to which they give rise -- can be contained, and progress made
toward their solutions.
countries to work together for a common end
Economic interdependence prevents nuclear extinction.
Copley News Service December 1, 1999
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation
by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth
seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle
apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the
WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other
nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the
benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to
be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not.
They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global
government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace
activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear
disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive
against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations
sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets
and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on
exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why
bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States
and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods
we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into
the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese
prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility
diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit
from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First
of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech
goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many
people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets
are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods
without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's
a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the
specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together,
like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace
shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
Environment
Refer to environment section below
Spills Over
Science diplomacy creates cultural exchanges that spill over
Federoff, KAUST professor of life sciences and Biotechnology, ’08.
(Nina, 4/2/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm, Accessed 6/25/13, ARH)
Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of U.S. diplomacy since the
end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy
efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to renewed and strengthened
relations with Egypt, India, and Pakistan-all started with the peaceful beachhead of
scientific diplomacy. For instance, polls indicate that people in the Middle East
generally view American S&T more favorably than other aspects of our society. This
approving attitude provides for favorable forums to explain other aspects of American
policies and actions. Our nation's citizens also benefit directly from S&T cooperation, as
it provides our scientists and engineers with greater access to cutting-edge research
and allows us to work across geographical boundaries to solve global problems. In
addition, globalization has amplified the worldwide competition for ideas, science and
engineering (S&E) talent, and leadership in turning new knowledge into real-world
applications. Many nations are accelerating their investments in research and
development, education, and infrastructure in order to drive sustained economic
growth. To continue being a global leader in S&T, we must ensure that we have access
to discoveries being made in every corner of the world. The National Science
Foundation understands the global nature of scientific discovery, and the
international character of knowledge creation and research activities are stressed in
NSF's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in America's Future. For more than 55
years, NSF has connected S&E researchers and educators in academic organizations,
industry and informal science institutions, both nationally and internationally, to
leverage intellectual capabilities. NSF has strengthened the Nation's collaborative
advantage by leading or participating in key interagency initiatives as well as by
developing innovative collaborations across all S&E disciplines.
Science engagement creates cooperation on unrelated issues
EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis
University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School
of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration”
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php
As science diplomacy begins to be recognized around the world as a powerful diplomatic tool,
the barriers to international scientific collaboration may be reduced or removed, which could
lead to the lowering of barriers between nations on other pressing issues.
Cuba Key
Embargo hurts US – Latin American relations, the plan would signal a change
benefitting the US’s relationship w/ the region
White, Senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 13
(Robert E., New York Times, 3/7/13, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
FOR most of our history, the
United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership
with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, thepostwar treaty
that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for a half-century, our policies
toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed
opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was
perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades —
offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶
Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize
the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl,
Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President
Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.¶ An
end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United
States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout
the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in
the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America.
The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt
pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had
a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution.
Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress,
a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from
Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but
Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin
D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy’s
assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night”
— began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished,
democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech
and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of
anti-Communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off
democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig
Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I
was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the
Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States
helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered
up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its
research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused
to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a
policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception
of the national interest.Ӧ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have
undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of
American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant
by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United
States and Canada — as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said
that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.”¶ Mr.
Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United
States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent,
a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped
the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin
America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama
to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as
the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the
Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic
strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily
in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel
restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile
community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted
Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American
relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the
history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely
by staying alive?¶ The
re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a
chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for
five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like
President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The
message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and
asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral
problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba
achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected
governments.¶ If, however, our
present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of
two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly
relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a
hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a
historical footnote.
Plan is in concession to all of Latin America—even allies like Colombia and
Mexico have condemned the embargo
Ballvé, writer for the Progressive Media Project, 8
(Teo, NACLA, 12/30/08, “End the Embargo Against Cuba,”
https://nacla.org/news/end-embargo-against-cuba, 6/24/13, IC)
“The embargo is a policy that hasn't worked in nearly 50 years,” Wayne Smith, the former head
of Washington's diplomatic mission in Havana under the Carter administration, recently told the
AP. “It's stupid, it's counterproductive and there is no international support for it.”¶ For 17
straight years, the 192-member U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a nonbinding resolution condemning the U.S. embargo. Only the United States, Israel and Palau voted
against the measure in October.¶ In the United States, the political tide is also turning against the
embargo, which would require Congressional approval to lift.¶ Politicians have traditionally
pandered to the Cuban exile community in Florida as a key — even decisive — voting bloc,
giving Cuban-American hardliners essentially a veto over changes in U.S. policy. But these old
guard, militant exiles, who generally left Cuba shortly after the Castro brothers declared victory,
have found their influence waning.¶ A generational and demographic shift is under way in south
Florida that changes the calculus.¶ A poll conducted by Florida International University a month
after the presidential election shows a sea change in Cuban-American opinion. The poll revealed
55 percent of Cuban-American respondents favored ending the embargo, while 65 percent said
they wanted Washington to re-establish diplomatic relations with Havana.¶ Lifting the embargo
would dramatically improve Washington's ties with the rest of Latin America.¶ On December 8,
the heads of 15 Caribbean nations called on Obama to rescind the embargo: “The Caribbean
community hopes that the transformational change which is under way in the United States will
finally relegate that measure to history,” their statement said.¶ Then on December 17 in Brazil,
the leaders of 33 Latin American countries, including conservative allies of Washington like
Colombia and Mexico, convened for another gathering and unanimously called on Obama to
drop the “unacceptable” embargo.¶ At that summit, Cuban President Raúl Castro even offered
to release political prisoners as a gesture to pave the way for talks between Havana and
Washington.¶ If Obama moves to lift the embargo, it would send a bold statement that his
administration is serious about writing a truly new chapter in U.S. relations with Cuba — and
the rest of Latin America.¶
Cuba is a key sticking point between US-Latin American relations, which are
crucial to US economy and global problems
Inter-American Dialogue, leading US center for policy analysis, exchange, and
communication on issues in Western Hemisphere Affairs, 12
(4/2012, Inter-American Dialogue“REMAKING THE RELATIONSHIP: The United
States and Latin America,”
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf,
p. 2-3, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
In part as a result of these shifts, US-Latin American relations have grown ¶ more distant . The
quality and intensity of ties have diminished . Most countries of the region view the United
States as less and less relevant to their ¶ needs—and with declining capacity to propose and
carry out strategies to ¶ deal with the issues that most concern them .¶ In the main, hemispheric
relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, ¶ happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred
relations in the past have subsided . But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from
more vitality ¶ and direction . Shared interests are not pursued as vigorously as they should ¶ be,
and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed . Well developed ideas for
reversing these disappointing trends are scarce Some enduring problems stand squarely in the
way of partnership and ¶ effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its broken
¶ immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United ¶ States and nearly
every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely ¶ refer to immigration as a foreign
policy issue . Domestic policy debates on ¶ this issue disregard the United States’ hemispheric
agenda as well as the ¶ interests of other nations .¶ Another chronic irritant is US drug policy,
which most Latin Americans now ¶ believe makes their drug and crime problems worse .
Secretary of State Hillary ¶ Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug
programs ¶ have not worked . Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the ¶
United States has shown little interest in exploring alternative approaches .¶ Similarly,
Washington’s more than half-century embargo on Cuba, as well ¶ as other elements of United
States’ Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all ¶ other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the
US position on these troublesome issues—immigration, drug policy, and Cuba—has set
Washington ¶ against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments .¶ These
issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The ¶ United States and the
nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to ¶ resolve them in order to build more
productive partnerships .¶ There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America
to ¶ pursue more robust ties .¶ Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened
and ¶ expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment
capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16trillion economy is a vital market ¶ and source of capital (including remittances) and technology
for Latin ¶ America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its
part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become ¶ more and more crucial to the
United States’ economic future .¶ The United States and many nations of Latin America and the
Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters ¶ as
climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly
expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶ million, the cultural and demographic
integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace,
setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership.
Plan appeases all of Latin America—they see foreign policy towards Cuba as
symbolic of Latin American policy
Goodman, reporter for Bloomberg News, 09
(Joshua, Bloomberg, 4/13/09, “Latin America to Push Obama on Cuba Embargo
at Summit,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLnOE1ib3E3Y,
accessed 6/24/13, IC)
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this
week, Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere,
exactly as it has been for half a century.¶ While Latin American leaders split on many issues,
they agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From
Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s pro-business Felipe Calderon, leaders view a
change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region,
which are at their lowest point in two decades.¶ Obama, born six months before President John
F. Kennedy imposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead, he’ll seek to
satisfy the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less
ambitious steps disclosed by the administration today -- repealing restrictions on family visits
and remittances imposed by former President George W. Bush.¶ That would mesh with his
stated goal of changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance” that he attributed to his predecessor
in his sole policy speech on the region last May.¶ “All of Latin America and the Caribbean are
awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the
Washington-based Organization of American States, said in an interview. “They value what
Obama has promised, but they want more.Ӧ The policy changes unveiled today also include an
expanded list of items that can be shipped to the island, and a plan to allow U.S.
telecommunications companies to apply for licenses in Cuba.¶ Symbolically Important¶ Cuba, the
only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important
to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes and looked to
Cuba and its longtime leader Fidel Castro, 82, for inspiration and support. Even though most
countries shun the communist policies of Castro and his brother, now-President Raul Castro, the
U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island.¶ “Cuba
represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and that’s why it’s so important for Obama
to address it now,” says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in
Washington, who headed the State Department’s Cuba interest section in Havana from 19791982. “Unless Obama wants to be booed off the stage, he better come with fresh ideas.”¶ The
U.S. president, 47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the principal theme at the summit
and would prefer the session focus instead on the economy, poverty and the environment, says
Jeffrey Davidow, the White House’s top adviser for the meeting. Obama also understands that
he can’t control the discussion and intends to deal with the other leaders as partners, Davidow
told reporters on April 6.¶
US-Cuban Relations Key to US-Latin American Relations
Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies
and Director for Latin America Studies, 13
(Julia, 6/23/13, Council Foreign Relaions, “Cuba After Communism”,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991?cid=rss-fullfeedcuba_after_communism062413&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3
A+cfr_main+(CFR.org+-+Main+Site+Feed), 6/27/13, AL)
In January, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opened his confirmation hearing by celebrating his close collaboration with Senator
John McCain (R-Ariz.) in overcoming the legacy of war in order to restore U.S. relations with Vietnam. Yet both Kerry and Obama still
seem to defer to the outdated conventional wisdom on Cuba, according to which Washington cannot change its failed policy so long
as Cuban Americans in Congress continue to oppose doing so. Reality, however, is already changing. These legislators' constituents
have started voting with their feet and checkbooks, traveling to the island and sending remittances to family there as never before.
Several wealthy Cuban Americans, moreover, are now talking directly with Havana about large-scale future investments. As a
Democrat who won nearly half of Florida's Cuban American vote in 2012, Obama
is in a better position than any of his
predecessors to begin charting an end to the United States' 50-year-long embargo. The
geopolitical context in
Latin America provides another reason the U.S. government should make a serious shift on
Cuba. For five years now, Obama has ignored Latin America's unanimous disapproval of Washington's position on Cuba. Rather
than perpetuate Havana's diplomatic isolation, U.S. policy embodies the imperial pretensions of a bygone era, contributing to
Washington's own marginalization. Virtually all countries in the region have refused to attend another Summit of the Americas
meeting if Cuba is not at the table. Cuba, in turn, currently
chairs the new Community of Latin American
and Caribbean States, which excludes Washington. The Obama administration has begun laying out what could
become a serious second-term agenda for Latin America focused on energy, jobs, social inclusion, and deepening integration in the
Americas. But the
symbolism of Cuba across the region is such that the White House can
definitively lead U.S.–Latin American relations out of the Cold War and into the twenty-first
century only by shifting its Cuba policy
Science Key
Science is the best engagement strategy
EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis
University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School
of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration”
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php
The very nature of scientific investigation encourages interactions between researchers,
regardless of where they happen to live and work; hence, research collaborations
spontaneously arise regardless of the political climate between host countries. These one-onone or small group contacts are sometimes one of the few avenues for communication between
the United States and a particular country and can provide a platform for industrial
partnerships, educational outreach and global community development. At its best, science
diplomacy is a means to create opportunities for civic engagement in difficult political
environments.
Solves for soft power
Dehgan and Colglazier 2k12 - the science and technology adviser to the administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development; the science and technology adviser to the U.S.
secretary of state (Alex and E. William, “Development Science and Science Diplomacy”,
12/7/2012, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/development-science-andscience-diplomacy)
Cooperation on science, technology, and engineering around development challenges
provides U.S. diplomats with a significant opportunity to leverage science as a tool of smart
power. U.S. scientific expertise is highly regarded around the world, even in areas where U.S. popularity may be low. Despite
fierce competition and rapidly increasing parity in science, technology, and engineering assets among nations, the United
States remains predominant in most fields and is a world leader in education, research, and
innovation. Scientific engagement serves U.S. interests to promote stability by empowering a
traditional source of moderate leadership. Scientists frequently are the intelligentsia of
society and play important roles as leaders in many developing countries. The values inherent
in science—honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, transparency and openness, meritocracy,
accountability, tolerance, and hunger for opposing points of view—are values that Americans
cherish. They are also values that achieve political goals, such as improving governance,
transparency, and the rule of law. Scientific engagement can also build long-term frameworks that reinforce and
support official relationships between the United States and other countries. Science diplomacy is not the relationship itself, but
provides the scaffolding essential for the relationship to thrive.
The embargo hinders science diplomacy – lifting it encourages collaboration
that solve for relations and other environmental impacts
Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de
Cuba, Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and
Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of
Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. 08
(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,”
Vol. 322 no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—
those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the
proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on
exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act
and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a
new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate,
agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation.
Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of
opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly
in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research
facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific
community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba
typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction,
as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban
scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize
damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss
of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2
hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. Another major example
where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases,
such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the
Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century.
Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in
Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no
interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and
sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in
the health security of both peoples. Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology,
including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its
research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment
to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with
many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no
program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—
openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a
framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross
from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual
leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and
social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United
States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only
significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba,
including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to
undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other
Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license
that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in
research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing
scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive
interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has
hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by
starting a new era of scientific cooperation.
***Disease***
2AC Mods
Disease/AIDS
Cuban biotech solves cancer, AIDS, and tropical disease but US action is key –
marketing and patents
Starr 2004
[Douglas Starr. Codirector of the Center for Science and Medical Journalism at Boston
University. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” December 2004.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html] WD
The end of the cold war was cruel to Cuba. The country's trading partners, denied Soviet largesse, dried up. Hard
cash ran low. What food the country could grow languished in the fields; trucks didn't have enough gasoline to bring the crops to
market. And of course there
was the US embargo. What Cubans call "the Special Period" produced
one notable success: pharmaceuticals. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Cuba got so good at making
knockoff drugs that a thriving industry took hold. Today the country is the largest medicine
exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on its client list. Cuban meds cost far
less than their first-world counterparts, and Fidel Castro's government has helped China,
Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south technology transfer." Yet at the same time
as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology
one of the building blocks of the economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to
intellectual property. To date his researchers have been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of
them in the US. Now they're setting their sights on the markets of the West. After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority
to find new ways to care for a poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports
thousands of doctors to impoverished countries and caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich Africans and Latin Americans
seeking cheap, high-quality care. In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting
protein interferon. Castro sent them with money for a shopping spree. They brought back a lab's worth of equipment and took over
a white stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and third world. Most
trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early '90s the business was worth more than $700
million a year. "And then, almost from a Monday to a Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic
Engineering and Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80 percent of its
foreign trade, and a third of its food imports. Faced
with economic calamity, Castro did something
remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows
how - Cuba's economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One
beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She
developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and her children before giving it to
volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After
five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You'll need 10.'" Campa
and her colleagues still have to scrimp and
scrounge. Labs are filled with gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from
the US has traveled the "long way around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that
it may well have circled the globe. Scientists develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines.
Each institute has its own production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system. Still, if pharma
is to become an economic engine, Cuban researchers acknowledge that they'll have to join the
international business community. South-to-south transfers simply don't raise enough cash.
That's where things get complicated. Forty years after it began, Washington's embargo remains a
punishing weapon. Not only are US companies banned from doing business with Cuba, but so
are their foreign subsidiaries. No freighter that visits a Cuban port may dock in the US for the
next six months. For a Cuban product to reach US companies, the makers have to prove a
"compelling national interest" to the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. Consolidation in the
drug industry has made things worse, says Ismael Clark, president of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. "You'd
have a supplier for several years, and suddenly you'd get a letter from the company saying,
'We can't supply you anymore because our firm was bought by an American transnational.'"
The country has taken a few steps toward bridging the gap. The American drug company SmithKline Beecham (now part of a British
transnational) got permission to license Campa's meningitis B vaccine in 1999. The terms of the deal are restrictive. SmithKline pays
Cuba in products during clinical trials (now in Phase II in Belgium) and in cash only if the drug proves to be viable. In July, CancerVax,
a California-based biotech company, got federal approval to test a Cuban vaccine that stimulates the immune system against lung
cancer cells. CancerVax is the first US business to receive such approval. CancerVax staffers saw the research at an international
conference, and then spent two years lobbying Capitol Hill and Cuban-American interest groups. Still,
na�vet� remains
the real obstacle to a Cuban biotech century. Fidel's pharmacists lack slick brochures and
golden-tongued sales staff. Foreigners tend to find Cuba overly bureaucratic, especially when closing a deal. "They
just don't get capitalism," a diplomat tells me over coffee in Boston. "The elite may watch American TV and read The Wall
Street Journal on the Web, so they have a conversational familiarity. But on a fundamental level they don't get it
and don't want to get it. They still think there's something immoral about profit." Borroto, of CIGB,
remembers talking to colleagues about using patents to protect their expanding market. That was the moment Castro decided to
pop into the lab. "What's all this about patents? You're sounding crazy!" he said. "We don't like patents, remember?" Borroto stood
his ground. "Even
if you're giving medicine to the third world," he said, "you still need to protect
yourself." Borroto knew he had to get better at the game. He sent his staff to Canada to get MBAs, to learn the language of
capitalism. Yet concepts like venture capital still escape him. "I can't understand how 80 percent of the biotech companies in the
world make money without selling any products," he says. "How do they do this? Hopeness," he guesses, using a neologism to stress
the absurdity. "They sell hopeness." Asked for an annual report - a basic necessity of international business - Agustin Lage, director
of the Center for Molecular Immunology, merely says, "You know, we've actually been meaning to produce one." Then he smiles and
shrugs. It's like Castro said: They
don't really like patents. They like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is
most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam moneymakers, cures for baldness or impotence
or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases.
That's probably why US and European scientists have a soft spot for their Cuban counterparts.
Everywhere north of the Florida Keys, once-magical biotech has become just another
expression of venture-driven capitalism. Leave it to the Cubans to make it revolutionary again.
Pandemics outweigh – probability and loss of life.
Zakaria 5 [Fareed, Editor of Newsweek International whose column appears in Newsweek,
Newsweek International and The Washington Post, “A Threat Worse than Terror,” 10-31,
Newsweek, http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/103105.html]
A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says
Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy
Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than
anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a threat assessment on
the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened.
On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one
involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill
hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions. Whether this
particular virus makes the final, fatal mutation that allows it to move from human to
human, one day some virus will. The basic factor that is fueling this surge of viruses is China's
growth. (China is the natural habitat of the influenza virus.) As China develops, it urbanizes, and its
forests and wetlands shrink. That forces migratory birds to gather closer together-and closer to human
habitation--which increases the chances of a virus spreading from one species to the next. Also,
growth means a huge rise in chicken consumption. Across thousands of homes in China every day,
chickens are slaughtered in highly unhygienic ways. "Every day the chances that this virus or another
such virus will move from one species to another grow," says Laurie Garrett, author of "The Coming
Plague," who has been writing brilliantly on this topic for years. Nobody really disputes that we are
badly unprepared for this threat. "If something like this pandemic were to happen today," says
Falkenrath, "the government would be mostly an observer, not a manager." The government can't
even give intelligent advice to its citizens because it doesn't actually know what to say. We don't
know whether people should stay put, leave cities, stay home or go to the nearest hospital. During
the cold war, hundreds of people in government participated in dozens of crisis
simulations of nuclear wars, accidents and incidents. These "tabletop exercises" were
conducted so that if and when a real crisis hit, policymakers would not be confronting
critical decisions for the first time. No such expertise exists for today's deadliest threat.
AIDS COULD MUTATE AND GO AIRBORNE, RISKING EXTINCTION
Tom Kerns November 23, 1999 "AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness."
Lecture from Introduction to Medical Ethics course.
http://www.bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html
"Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential
Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy
the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of
airborne transmission: "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there
is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne
asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers
transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is
it is hard to imagine a worse threat to
humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility;
the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such
a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague."
momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes,
Tropical Diseases
Cooperation Solves
US-Cuba science cooperation is key to solve all tropical disease – more virulent
strains of hepatitis, bird flu, H1N1, dengue fever, and others are coming in the
status quo which means the plan is critical
Discovery 2-11-13
[Discovery News, February 11, 2013, “Could Cuba Help U.S. Fight Tropical Diseases?”
http://news.discovery.com/human/cuba-help-fight-tropical-diseases-dengue-fever.htm] WD
When it comes to issues like the spread of infectious disease, increased collaboration with
Cuba may just be good medicine. THE GIST 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 non-profit 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. Earlier this year, the U.S. Congress had
seriously discussed a full lifting of the travel ban, but Cuban-American Congressmen expressed
concerns about Americans fueling a tourism industry run by the Cuban government. Now
researchers say more Republicans in Congress will further stifle that possibility, but note that
Obama could still ease the licensing needed for more extensive medical research. To gauge the
likelihood of that possibility, Discovery News reached out to the White House, as well as to
Cuban American Congressmen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Lincoln
Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. and Albio Sires, D-N.J. None responded. Jorge Bolaños, the Chief of Mission
for the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, did offer Discovery News some thoughts
following a lecture he gave at nearby Howard University. "We have no objection to any
cooperation," he said, adding that his country was very proud of its ability to stave off
epidemics through preventative strategies in spite of serious economic and material
deficiencies. "If I'm waiting to get the flu shot, and if I don't go there (to the clinic) for the flu
shot, they will go to my house… When you don't go to see the doctor, you suffer the tyranny of
the doctor," he joked.
Cuban biotech solves cancer, AIDS, and tropical disease but US action is key –
marketing and patents
Starr 2004
[Douglas Starr. Codirector of the Center for Science and Medical Journalism at Boston
University. “The Cuban Biotech Revolution.” December 2004.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html] WD
The end of the cold war was cruel to Cuba. The country's trading partners, denied Soviet largesse, dried up. Hard
cash ran low. What food the country could grow languished in the fields; trucks didn't have enough gasoline to bring the crops to
market. And of course there
was the US embargo. What Cubans call "the Special Period" produced
one notable success: pharmaceuticals. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Cuba got so good at making
knockoff drugs that a thriving industry took hold. Today the country is the largest medicine
exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on its client list. Cuban meds cost far
less than their first-world counterparts, and Fidel Castro's government has helped China,
Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south technology transfer." Yet at the same time
as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology
one of the building blocks of the economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to
intellectual property. To date his researchers have been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of
them in the US. Now they're setting their sights on the markets of the West. After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority
to find new ways to care for a poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports
thousands of doctors to impoverished countries and caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich Africans and Latin Americans
seeking cheap, high-quality care. In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting
protein interferon. Castro sent them with money for a shopping spree. They brought back a lab's worth of equipment and took over
a white stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and third world. Most
trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early '90s the business was worth more than $700
million a year. "And then, almost from a Monday to a Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic
Engineering and Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80 percent of its
foreign trade, and a third of its food imports. Faced
with economic calamity, Castro did something
remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows
how - Cuba's economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One
beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She
developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and her children before giving it to
volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After
five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You'll need 10.'" Campa
and her colleagues still have to scrimp and
scrounge. Labs are filled with gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from
the US has traveled the "long way around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that
it may well have circled the globe. Scientists develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines.
Each institute has its own production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system. Still, if pharma
is to become an economic engine, Cuban researchers acknowledge that they'll have to join the
international business community. South-to-south transfers simply don't raise enough cash.
That's where things get complicated. Forty years after it began, Washington's embargo remains a
punishing weapon. Not only are US companies banned from doing business with Cuba, but so
are their foreign subsidiaries. No freighter that visits a Cuban port may dock in the US for the
next six months. For a Cuban product to reach US companies, the makers have to prove a
"compelling national interest" to the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. Consolidation in the
drug industry has made things worse, says Ismael Clark, president of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. "You'd
have a supplier for several years, and suddenly you'd get a letter from the company saying,
'We can't supply you anymore because our firm was bought by an American transnational.'"
The country has taken a few steps toward bridging the gap. The American drug company SmithKline Beecham (now part of a British
transnational) got permission to license Campa's meningitis B vaccine in 1999. The terms of the deal are restrictive. SmithKline pays
Cuba in products during clinical trials (now in Phase II in Belgium) and in cash only if the drug proves to be viable. In July, CancerVax,
a California-based biotech company, got federal approval to test a Cuban vaccine that stimulates the immune system against lung
cancer cells. CancerVax is the first US business to receive such approval. CancerVax staffers saw the research at an international
conference, and then spent two years lobbying Capitol Hill and Cuban-American interest groups. Still,
na�vet� remains
the real obstacle to a Cuban biotech century. Fidel's pharmacists lack slick brochures and
golden-tongued sales staff. Foreigners tend to find Cuba overly bureaucratic, especially when closing a deal. "They
just don't get capitalism," a diplomat tells me over coffee in Boston. "The elite may watch American TV and read The Wall
Street Journal on the Web, so they have a conversational familiarity. But on a fundamental level they don't get it
and don't want to get it. They still think there's something immoral about profit." Borroto, of CIGB,
remembers talking to colleagues about using patents to protect their expanding market. That was the moment Castro decided to
pop into the lab. "What's all this about patents? You're sounding crazy!" he said. "We don't like patents, remember?" Borroto stood
his ground. "Even
if you're giving medicine to the third world," he said, "you still need to protect
yourself." Borroto knew he had to get better at the game. He sent his staff to Canada to get MBAs, to learn the language of
capitalism. Yet concepts like venture capital still escape him. "I can't understand how 80 percent of the biotech companies in the
world make money without selling any products," he says. "How do they do this? Hopeness," he guesses, using a neologism to stress
the absurdity. "They sell hopeness." Asked for an annual report - a basic necessity of international business - Agustin Lage, director
of the Center for Molecular Immunology, merely says, "You know, we've actually been meaning to produce one." Then he smiles and
shrugs. It's like Castro said: They
don't really like patents. They like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is
most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam moneymakers, cures for baldness or impotence
or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases.
That's probably why US and European scientists have a soft spot for their Cuban counterparts.
Everywhere north of the Florida Keys, once-magical biotech has become just another
expression of venture-driven capitalism. Leave it to the Cubans to make it revolutionary again.
Cuban biotech key to Cuban economy and disease prevention but US
restrictions hamper further development
Wylie 2010
[Lana Wylie. Associate Professor at McMaster University in Canada, Writing for Canadian
International Council. “Foreign Policy for Canada’s Tomorrow: Reassessing Canada’s
Relationship with Cuba in an Era of Change.” October 2010. http://www.opencanada.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/Reassessing-Canada%E2%80%99s-Relationship-with-Cuba-in-an-Eraof-Change-Lana-Wylie1.pdf] WD
In particular, the biotechnology sector has the capability to be a major earner. 74
Biotechnology and related medical services are the two most promising areas of the Cuban
economy, and by some economic analyses this sector is forecast to take over tourism as the
country’s prime source of foreign exchange. According to some estimates, even by 2003, the health and
medical research sector was bringing in approximately US$250 million, ranking in the top 10
areas of Cuban exports. Of the $250 million, health tourism raised US$40 million, and
biotechnology, more than US$150 million. By 2007, Cuban biotechnology and medical
products were Cuba’s second-highest export earner, with an estimated income of $350 million
produced from the sale of these products abroad. 75 Furthermore, worldwide medical tourism is estimated to
grow to billions of dollars within the next couple of years, and Cuba is well positioned to be a global leader in this field and, as such,
to claim much of that potential revenue. The
biotechnology sector benefits from an exceptionally welleducated population and a concerted effort by the state to support the industry even in times
of great difficulty. Cuba is best known for its innovative vaccine research; it produces vaccines
for everything from flu to lung cancer. Furthermore, Cuban scientists are conducting promising
research in other areas of biotechnology and medical sciences. A conservative estimate
indicates that Cuban scientific institutes have at least 100 products in their drug pipeline. Biotech
and pharmaceutical companies from many countries have invested in this sector through joint venture agreements. For example,
Beckpharma, a British pharmaceutical company, is collaborating with Cuban research institutes to engineer drugs that Beckpharma
will make available worldwide. 76 American
policy-makers have felt pressured to make an exception to
the embargo in this area because of the ability of the Cubans to advance medical treatments
for many diseases. 77 Indeed, given the advances in Cuban research, exceptions have already
been made to the embargo in the area of biotechnology. In 2004 the California company CancerVax received
approval to develop three Cuban cancer drugs. Although CancerVax was required to pay Cuba in medicine or food, it was a historic
deal since this was the first deal approved to develop drugs between a US biotech company and Cuba. 78
If Cuban
biotechnology continues to produce successful medical treatments and pharmaceuticals, the
pressure on American policy-makers to normalize relations will likely become even more
intense. Cuba’s biotech sector could be a greater source of knowledge and innovation for Canadian researchers. In fact, some
academic connections have developed into partnerships. Researchers from the University of Ottawa and the University of Havana
worked together on a vaccine for flu and meningitis, which was jointly patented by the universities in 1999. The opportunity for
Canadian and Cuban scientists to come together without restrictions led to this successful collaboration. Certainly Canadian
scientists, in comparison to their American counterparts, are well situated to engage in partnerships for the benefit of both
communities. One Canadian company has begun to realize the potential in Cuban science. In 1995, an Ontario company, YM
Biosciences, collaborated with the Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM) in Havana to commercialize cancer vaccines being
developed by CIM. This collaboration has developed the therapeutic antibody to an agent that promotes tumour growth. Yet
companies like YM Biosciences recognize that Cuban ventures carry additional risks, most
significantly because of opposition from the United States. David Allen, chief executive of the company,
explains, “Developing a product that originates in Cuba is definitely a greater challenge than
developing a product that originates elsewhere.” 79 Working with Cuban partners makes it
difficult to market drugs in the United States and greatly complicates the already tricky
process of gaining approval from the American Food and Drug Administration. Although there are
serious drawbacks to these projects, companies can overcome the hurdles. For example, the partnership between YM Biosciences
and Cuba’s CIM was able to expand in 2004 to include the American corporation CancerVax. YM Biosciences was further encouraged
by early signals from the Obama administration. In an April 2009 update for its investors, the company reported that “the
enlightened approach demonstrably being adopted toward Cuba matters, consistent with the
stated position of senior members of the current US administration (including President
Obama), holds out the prospect for positive consequences for our drug which will benefit both
our stakeholders and cancer patients in the US.” 80
Cuba biotech solves disease but US law prevents international distribution and
development
Randal 2000
[Judith Randal. Writer for Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Despite Embargo,
Biotechnology in Cuba Thrives.” July 5, 2000. Volume 92, Issue 13.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/13/1034.long] WD
Cuba has been turning to biotechnology to earn foreign exchange. A part of its R&D effort, for
example, is to develop generic versions of prescription drugs that can be sold to “niche
markets”—principally poor countries—as soon as the patents on them expire. (Cuba, unlike China, honors foreign patents and
has its own Office for Intellectual Property.) The government plows the profits from this and other overseas sales of its
biotechnology back into the R&D centers. But
by no means can every product of Cuban R&D be called
“me-too,” as a vaccine from the Finlay Institute in Havana illustrates. It is the world’s only
type B bacterial—i.e., meningococcal—meningitis vaccine, and since its introduction in 1989
(originally for domestic use), it has earned Cuba about US $40 million from sales to other
countries, principally Brazil. Last year, this vaccine was licensed to SmithKline Beecham, which
means that it may eventually also be available in the United States. The license, however,
required special dispensations from the U.S. government, which are hard to get. At one point,
for example, Merck & Co. officials met with President Fidel Castro to discuss AIDS research
collaborations with Cuban scientists but dropped the idea when they found too many U.S.
legal complications in the way. The effect of U.S. sanctions on Cuban biotechnology, in fact,
can be more than bilateral. The country’s inability to buy directly from U.S. suppliers, for
example, has driven some of its investigators to spend time in the better-equipped labs of
European colleagues or to collaborate with them from afar, creating considerable sympathy
for the Cubans’ plight in the process. Another example is the Center for Molecular Immunology (Spanish acronym
CIM), a part of Havana’s Western Scientific Pole and York Medical Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario, its joint venture partner. The center
specializes in oncology and is headed by Augustin Lage, M.D., Ph.D., whose brother Carlos Lage is President Castro’s finance
minister. CIM has in its R&D portfolio (among other things): MAbs—some radioactively labeled—that target one type of cancer or
another for purposes of diagnosis or therapy; and a doubly recombinant vaccine that has shown promise for controlling advanced
non-small cell lung cancer and may be useful for certain other cancers as well. (See story below.) Under York Medical’s aegis, the
vaccine and three versions of a CIM MAb are in clinical trials in Canada. David Allan, York Medical’s chief executive officer, is upbeat
about these products—not least because Canadian regulatory authorities were sufficiently impressed by their performance in Cuba
to issue the approvals that were a prerequisite for the trials. But Allan
also worries about the effect of the U.S.
embargo on things Cuban no matter their benefits. He fears that “no drug firm doing business
in the United States—and that includes multinationals—will risk trying to commercialize
products that originated in Havana.” In sum, for all the prestige that scientists in Cuba enjoy at
home, it is difficult for them to find a place in the international sun.
Disease Impacts
Pandemics outweigh – probability and loss of life.
Zakaria 5 [Fareed, Editor of Newsweek International whose column appears in Newsweek,
Newsweek International and The Washington Post, “A Threat Worse than Terror,” 10-31,
Newsweek, http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/103105.html]
A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says
Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy
Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than
anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a threat assessment on
the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened.
On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one
involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill
hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions. Whether this
particular virus makes the final, fatal mutation that allows it to move from human to
human, one day some virus will. The basic factor that is fueling this surge of viruses is China's
growth. (China is the natural habitat of the influenza virus.) As China develops, it urbanizes, and its
forests and wetlands shrink. That forces migratory birds to gather closer together-and closer to human
habitation--which increases the chances of a virus spreading from one species to the next. Also,
growth means a huge rise in chicken consumption. Across thousands of homes in China every day,
chickens are slaughtered in highly unhygienic ways. "Every day the chances that this virus or another
such virus will move from one species to another grow," says Laurie Garrett, author of "The Coming
Plague," who has been writing brilliantly on this topic for years. Nobody really disputes that we are
badly unprepared for this threat. "If something like this pandemic were to happen today," says
Falkenrath, "the government would be mostly an observer, not a manager." The government can't
even give intelligent advice to its citizens because it doesn't actually know what to say. We don't
know whether people should stay put, leave cities, stay home or go to the nearest hospital. During
the cold war, hundreds of people in government participated in dozens of crisis
simulations of nuclear wars, accidents and incidents. These "tabletop exercises" were
conducted so that if and when a real crisis hit, policymakers would not be confronting
critical decisions for the first time. No such expertise exists for today's deadliest threat.
Disease spread will cause extinction.
Steinbruner 98 Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution [John D., “Biological weapons: A plague
upon all houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22
It s a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of
defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long
course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical
immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could
design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New
diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there
have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic
scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million
people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western
Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of
the mv virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million
people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera --once
thought to be under control--are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century,
changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The
rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement
across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate
manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the
future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an
issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.
FAILURE TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF AIDS TRIGGERS MUTATIONS THAT WILL
KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET
Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, Professors of Population studies at Stanford University, THE
POPULATION EXPLOSION, 1990, p. 147-8
Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV
can be slowed through public education and other measures, on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory
preventatives or treatments, and to a large extent on luck. The virus has already shown itself to be highly
mutable, and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug, AZT, that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported."
A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts, in this case people, might evolve new
transmission characteristics. To do so, however, would almost certainly involve changes in its
lethality. If, for instance, the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily), the very process
would almost certainly make it more lethal. Unlike the current version of AIDS, which can take ten years or
more to kill its victims, the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. Infected individuals then
would have less time to spread the virus to others, and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in
the case of myxopatomis). What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear, but it could temporarily increase the transmission
If the ability of the AIDS
virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth, the lungs, or the intestines
were increased, the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated
food. But it is likely, as Temin points out, that acquiring those abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently
rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once again equilibrated.
infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. In effect it would produce an entirely different disease.
We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate, Joshua Lederberg, is worried that a
relatively minor mutation
could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. If so,
it might be transmissible through coughs.
AIDS COULD MUTATE AND GO AIRBORNE, RISKING EXTINCTION
Tom Kerns November 23, 1999 "AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness."
Lecture from Introduction to Medical Ethics course.
http://www.bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html
"Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential
Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy
the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of
airborne transmission: "We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there
is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne
asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers
transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is
it is hard to imagine a worse threat to
humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility;
the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such
a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague."
momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes,
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HIV KILLS MILLIONS, RISKS NEW MUTATIONS AND
SECOND WAVE PANDEMICS
Natalie Angier, science writer for The New York Times, 2001
[“CASE STUDY: GLOBALIZATION; LOCATION: EVERYWHERE; Together, in Sickness and in Health,
p. online]
A true understanding of that growing interconnectedness has to include the developing world, where most of
the people on the planet live and where infectious diseases account for almost half the deaths each year. Half of
those deaths can be attributed to three "pedestrian" yet persistently devastating diseases: malaria, H.I.V./AIDS and tuberculosis.
Malaria kills more than one million people annually, the overwhelming majority of them children in sub-Saharan Africa. Many
millions of other people living in more than 90 countries suffer from malaria, sometimes contracting it repeatedly year after year.
Though they don't die of the disease, the debility and cost are enormous. By one estimate, Africa's gross domestic product would be
$100 billion greater today than it is if malaria had been eliminated. And the warming global climate is carrying those malaria-bearing
mosquitoes north. So is the 2:43 out of Kinshasa: planes landing in Charles de Gaulle Airport have recently been found to be carrying
more than a few nonpaying passengers, leading European airlines to step up their preflight extermination efforts. Sub-Saharan
Africa also has taken the most brutal jackhammering from the AIDS epidemic. Of the 35 million people living
with H.I.V. or AIDS in the world, 25 million are in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 5.4 million people who are newly
infected with the virus each year, 4 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. Helen Epstein, a former instructor at Makerere University
School of Medicine in Uganda, wrote recently in The New York Review of Books that "the
AIDS epidemic in Africa may turn
out to be the worst health crisis in the history of the human race." Thanks to the effectiveness of new drug
regimens, Westerners have developed the false sense that AIDS is no longer a lethal disease. But apart from
the fact that nobody knows how long patients on the new drug regimens will survive before the virus finally outmutates the current
armamentarium, these drugs
are expensive and difficult to take. ¶ Moreover, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is unlikely
to remain confined to Africa: the strains of H.I.V. running rampant there, if left unchecked, are sure to gain
novel malevolence that would allow them to spread elsewhere and overwhelm whatever resources we have
devoted to defeating our Western-bred strains. And keep in mind that other highly populous countries like China and India
are just beginning to feel the brunt of the disease. There's a perversely poetic loopiness at work: a disease that presumably had its
origins in Africa made its first angry mark in America, then exploded in Africa, and is now moving onward, outward and back again,
cat's-cradle style. It's
not "Africa's" health crisis alone. The only sane response to the world's AIDS crisis
remains prevention -- a response that hardly attracts an ounce of attention, let alone pounds, dollars or rubles. Last year, a
total of $165 million from all sources was devoted to AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa, compared with the $2.5 billion
estimated as necessary to do even a perfunctory job. "
***Biotech***
2AC Mods
Famine/Food Shortages
Biotechnology is key to avoid otherwise inevitable food shortages
Ahmad 12 – Professor in the department of botany, University of Kashmir, India. (Parvaiz, “Biotechnology as an Aid for Crop
Improvement to Overcome Food Shortage”, 2012, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4116-4_9, HW)
World’s population has crossed 6.5 billion with majority of human beings living in developing
or under developing countries. Clearly, food security in such countries will be a primary
concern over the next few decades. However, options for increased food production to meet
this population pressure are limited because most arable land is already under cultivation,
and in many areas land use cannot be further intensified without a risk to the long-term
productivity. Agricultural land use has been especially intense in recent years because of rapid urbanization and
increasing environmental pollution. The ultimate need is to use newer technologies which could help
us to curb this food insecurity. Biotechnology is globally recognized as a rapidly emerging,
complex and far reaching new technology. It has revolutionized all the fields of life. Recent discoveries
and technical innovations in the field of genomics and biotechnology are revealing the full
complement of genes in crops, the ability to define genetic variation and use DNA markers to
follow chromosome segments with known functions through breeding programmes are leading to new
efficiencies in breeding. The ability to isolate and redesign genes and transfer them into different plants also
offers the breeder solutions to several key limitations. The convergence of advances in biologygenomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and information technologies is driving the emergence of a new bio-economy. By
the usage of this technology we have achieved remarkable success in increasing crop
productivity, improving crop quality as well as overcoming food shortage. Additionally the
genetically engineered crops have shown a remarkable potential to tackle some of the world’s most challenging
socioeconomic problems which are more prevalent in the developing world than in the industrialized nations.
Famine causes extinction
George Plumb, Environmental Activist, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?” 5/18/2008,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI
D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05
Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global
cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food
Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will
Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some
countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time
the problem will not be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year!
help.
Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods — mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal
feed. Poor
harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed.
High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from
growing food crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that
is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is
unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a
temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends
whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of
civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political
instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically,
threatening the very stability of civilization itself."
Food Prices
Biotech advancement is key to prevent food shortages and food prices - saves
millions of lives
Go 8 – Executive order of PhilStar, Philippines based news source. (Marianne, “Biotechnology pushed to ease food shortage”,
6/10/2008, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/66955/biotechnology-pushed-ease-food-shortage, HW)
Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap told delegates at an international agriculture conference in Italy that biotechnology
is key
to the world’s quest for food security amid the current shortage in the global food supply and
escalating food prices.¶ An agriculture official clarified that it was not a blanket endorsement of the use of genetically
modified organisms.¶ The Philippines also appealed to international donors to increase fund support for the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Laguna, to improve agricultural productivity research.¶ In his statement at the recent Special
Meeting on the Food Crisis convened by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Ambassador to the UN Hilario
Davide Jr. urged donor institutions to increase funding for the IRRI as part of the measures to curb the global food crisis.¶ Yap cited
the program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in the
Philippines that applied biotechnology to raise the
quality and quantity of food crops through the development of varieties and seeds that are
virus and pest-resistant which could survive dry spells and flash floods induced by climate
change.¶ “Ultimately, biotechnology has evolved to be the hope in securing food for the
world’s growing population,” Yap said last week during an international agricultural biotechnology meeting hosted by
the United States and Egypt at the sidelines of a three-day global food summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).¶ US
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, Professor Magdy Madkour of the Ains Shams University of Egypt, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) Administrator Henrietta Fore, C.S. Karim of the Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh, Dr. Shivaji
Pandey, director of the FAO Plant Protection Division, Minister Laurent Sedogo of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries of
Burkina Faso and Minister Hilary Onek of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of Uganda were among the
panelists in the biotechnology forum.¶ The meeting was held in between sessions of the FAO-hosted High Level Conference on
World Food Security in Rome which was attended by heads of states and other top government officials from over 40 countries plus
representatives from multilateral financial institutions.¶ The conference was held to discuss strategies and initiatives that would
squarely address the new challenges to global food security.¶ Yap pointed out that the
biotechnology revolution has
benefited Philippine agriculture in terms of increasing “overall productivity through increased
farm yields and competitive agricultural products that would translate into higher farmers’
income.”¶ He said “biotechnology is not the panacea to all our food security needs and economic development crusades.”¶
“We consider it (biotechnology) as one of the means to pursue agricultural modernization and
achieve our national economic goals,” Yap said. Yap explained that the country’s policy includes measures to comply
with international standards on the safe use of genetically modified organism (GMO).¶ “We have enough protocol that comply with
the United Nations policy on the safe use of GMO products. Be that as it may, we have enough non-GMO products right now that
deliver bigger yields for our farmers so we want to focus on the propagation of these products first,” Yap said.¶ Bureau of Plant
Industry (BPI) Director Joel Rudinas, however, clarified that biotechnology involves a wide range of operations ranging from tissue
culture to genetic manipulation and the government’s policy is not a blanket endorsement of GMO.¶ Rudinas admitted that the
government allows certain GMOs but subject to strict rules.¶ Any application for the use of GMO seeds has to undergo a long
process by the BPI before commercial distribution.¶ Yap said the
DA has applied biotechnology to produce highvalue products from traditional crops such as rice, papaya, and coconut, improving carabao
reproduction and upgrading the country’s livestock industry, boost fish production.¶ Davide. the
Philippines Permanent representative to the UN, urged the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Internal Fund for
Agricultural Development and development partners to donate more research funds for IRRI.¶ “The
research of IRRI, the
world’s main repository of rice seeds as well as genetic and other information about rice—the
crop that feeds nearly half of the peoples of the world—has been, unfortunately,
tremendously slowed down because of cuts in funding for agricultural research,” he said.¶ The envoy
cited the case of the brown plant hopper, a tiny fly that has caused havoc across East Asia.¶ “Damage to rice crops which
has caused reduced production output would have been prevented if only IRRI’s budget for
research had not been cut or reduced,” he said.¶ He cited IRRI reports that the brown plant hopper is multiplying by
the billions and chewing through rice paddies in East Asia, threatening the diets of many poor people.¶ Davide said China, the
world’s biggest rice producer, has announced that it was struggling to control the rapid spread of these insects which could destroy
as much as 20 percent of a harvest. ¶ Although no fewer than 14 new types of genetic resistance varieties of rice have been
discovered, Davide said the budget cuts prevented IRRI from moving further to develop more hybrid rice varieties. ¶ “If
money is
available for research, IRRI can accomplish the task in four to seven years and save millions of
people from hunger, from death,” he said
Food price hikes and shortages trigger global war.
Stephen Hume, 4/16/2008. Senior writer for the Vancouver Sun. “World Food Crisis Threatens
Rich Nations (That's Us), Too,” Vancouver Sun,
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2008/04/10852.php
In Rome, Reuters
reported Jacques Diouf, head of the United Nations F ood and A griculture O rganization, warning
that with 37 countries already in crisis, each day brings greater risk of global famine. "I'm surprised
that I have not been summoned to the UN Security Council," Diouf said. "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of
starvation, they will react." India's finance minister was more direct. "It is becoming starker by the day," Palaniappan
Chidambaram said. "Unless we act fast for a global consensus on the price spiral, the social unrest
induced by food prices in several countries will conflagrate into a global contagion, leaving no
country -- developed or otherwise -- unscathed."
Bioterror
Biotechnology solves bioterror
Bailey, Science Correspond for Reason Magazine, 1 [Ronald, award-winning science correspondent
for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book
Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The
Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the
personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years. 11/7/1, “The Best
Biodefense,” Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense]
But Cipro and other antibiotics are just a small part of the arsenal that could one day soon be deployed in defending America against
biowarfare. Just consider
what’s in the pipeline now that could be used to protect Americans
against infectious diseases, including bioterrorism. A Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association
survey found 137 new medicines for infectious diseases in drug company research and
development pipelines, including 19 antibiotics and 42 vaccines. With regard to anthrax, instead of having to rush a sample
to a lab where it takes hours or even days to culture, biotech companies have created test strips using
antibody technologies that can confirm the presence of anthrax in 15 minutes or less, allowing
decontamination and treatment to begin immediately. Similar test strips are being developed for the detection of
smallpox as well. The biotech company EluSys Therapeutics is working on an exciting technique which
would "implement instant immunity." EluSys joins two monoclonal antibodies chemically together so that they act
like biological double-sided tape. One antibody sticks to toxins, viruses, or bacteria while the other binds to human red blood cells.
The red blood cells carry the pathogen or toxin to the liver for destruction and return unharmed to the normal blood circulation. In
one test, the
EluSys treatment reduced the viral load in monkeys one million-fold in less than an
hour. The technology could be applied to a number of bioterrorist threats, such as dengue
fever, Ebola and Marburg viruses, and plague. Of course, the EluSys treatment would not just be useful for
responding to bioterrorist attacks, but also could treat almost any infection or poisoning. Further down the
development road are technologies that could rapidly analyze a pathogen’s DNA, and then
guide the rapid synthesis of drugs like the ones being developed by EluSys that can bind, or disable, segments of DNA
crucial to an infectious organism's survival. Again, this technology would be a great boon for treating infectious diseases and
might be a permanent deterrent to future bioterrorist attacks. Seizing Bayer’s patent now wouldn’t just
cost that company and its stockholders a little bit of money (Bayer sold $1 billion in Cipro last year), but would reverberate
throughout the pharmaceutical research and development industry. If governments begin to seize patents on the pretext of
addressing alleged public health emergencies, the investment in research that would bring about new and effective treatments
could dry up. Investors and pharmaceutical executives couldn’t justify putting $30 billion annually into already risky and uncertain
research if they couldn’t be sure of earning enough profits to pay back their costs. Consider what happened during the Clinton
health care fiasco, which threatened to impose price controls on prescription drugs in the early 1990s: Growth in research spending
dropped off dramatically from 10 percent annually to about 2 percent per year. A
far more sensible and farsighted
way to protect the American public from health threats, including bioterrorism, is to
encourage further pharmaceutical research by respecting drug patents. In the final analysis, America’s best
biodefense is a vital and profitable pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.
That solves Extinction
Steinbrenner, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 97
(John Steinbrenner, Senior Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22-1997, Lexis, 6-31-13)
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential
weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are
alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not
independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple
observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the
damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably
predictable manner. Even
before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate
the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential
component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose
scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback
is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most
likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for
deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could
efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying
cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918
influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not
necessarily its outer limit.
Extensions
Cooperation Solves
US-Cuba science cooperation solves Cuban economy and biotech development
Chen 2003
[Chen May Yee. Editorial Consultant at Straits Times in Singapore. Writing for Christian Science
Monitor. “Cutting-edge biotech in old-world Cuba.” April 17, 2003.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0417/p14s03-stct.html] WD
This crumbling, isolated throwback to a cold-war past is probably one of the last places you'd expect to find the sciences of the
future. In Old Havana, wood-paneled pharmacies with crystal chandeliers and empty shelves attract more gawking tourists these
days than customers. Food is so scarce that the government urges citizens to grow fruit and vegetables in small urban plots to
supplement their diet. Yet
this struggling island nation is chipping away at a longtime US embargo
with an unlikely tool: biotechnology. More than three years ago, Smith-Kline Beecham PLC - a
charter member of the capitalist world's pharmaceutical sector - signed an agreement with
Cuba's Finlay Institute to market the institute's vaccine against meningitis B - the world's first.
Now called GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the second-biggest pharmaceutical com-pany in the world is
running trials for the Cuban vaccine in Europe and Latin America. If those trials are successful,
the company says it plans clinical trials in the US. For Cuba, the deal was a tiny crack in the
door that might open up lucrative new markets for its biotechnology products. Besides earning
the impoverished communist country much-needed dollars, it could help build new economic
bridges with a world that has become a much lonelier place since the collapse of Cuba's old
ally, the Soviet Union. "We have neither money nor time," says Concepcion Campa, the scientist who developed the
vaccine and the president of Finlay, Cuba's main research and manufacturing center for human vaccines. With GlaxoSmithKline,
which holds a 7 percent share of the world pharmaceutical market, Cuba gains access to marketing heft and a vast commercial
network. The
market for such a vaccine is "hundreds of millions of dollars," according to Moncef Slaoui, a
senior vice president at GSK Biologicals, the Belgian-based vaccine division of GlaxoSmithKline. Cuba currently earns just
$100 million a year from its total pharmaceutical and biotechnology exports. The official line on
science's value When meeting foreign visitors, Cuban officials like to quote something Fidel Castro said in 1960 just after he marched
into power: "The future of our homeland must be that of men of science."
Ironically, the 42-year-old US trade
embargo might actually have spurred the island's pursuit to science. Imposed in 1960 by President
Kennedy after Mr. Castro infuriated the US by nationalizing $1 billion worth of US-owned property in Cuba, the embargo remains in
place decades later. Unable
to import some of the medicines it wanted, Cuba began making its own
generic drugs through reverse engineering - piracy by another name. From there sprang a state
pharmaceutical industry and later, a biotechnology offshoot. Cuban officials say the country now produces 80 percent of the types
of drugs and medicines used by its 11 million people, though the empty shelves in pharmacies suggest the actual shortfall in quantity
may be greater. The healthcare strategy is straightforward: The government develops the drugs and vaccines according to the
demands of Cubans. It then tests them and dispenses them across the population through a network of neighborhood family
doctors, polyclinics, and hospitals. "Cuban
science does not produce as much in peer-reviewed Englishlanguage scientific journals as its size [would merit], but [there is] more input into social
practice," the application of science in a real-world setting, says Sergio Jorge Pastrana, who handles international relations for the
142-year-old Cuban Academy of Sciences. In the early 1990s, when the economy's implosion got so bad that the average Cuban
adult lost 20 pounds, the government continued to set aside 1.5 percent of gross national product each year for scientific research. A
total of $1 billion between 1992 and 1996 went toward creating a no-frills, centralized version of Silicon Valley, the Western Havana
Scientific Pole. In the mid-1990s, crippled by the economic crisis, Cuba sent its scientists to labs in Sweden, Spain, and Germany so
they could continue working. Today, Cuba's economy is recovering, thanks to emergency liberalization measures that promote
tourism and allow Cubans to start limited private businesses and hold and use the US dollar. At the Western Havana Scientific Pole,
scientists at 52 institutes are researching vaccines and therapies for AIDS and Alzheimer's, among others. There
are some
cooperation agreements - for product sales, joint ventures, contract manufacture and
research - with entities in Latin America, China, Europe, the former Soviet Union, and
Australia. Cuba has filed applications for 500 patents around the world. Embargo blocks biggest market
But the biggest market has so far eluded it: Although the US has granted Cuba 24 patents, the
embargo has so far prevented it from selling any of the products in America. There is also
some biotechnology research in agriculture, but it has not been commercialized, Cuban officials say,
partly for fear that genetically modified food crops might hurt that famed Cuban export - cigars. Stories of frustration abound.
Scientists have limited access to Western journals and can't always afford the latest
equipment. They are often denied US visas for scientific exchange. One Finlay Institute scientist who
works with a mass spectrometer, a machine for analyzing biochemicals, says he can't get a US visa to attend conferences to discuss
the cutting-edge technology. Another researcher shares his subscription to the journal Nature with 20 colleagues. They
are also
abysmally paid, especially when compared with workers in the growing tourist industry, where cash registers ring with dollars,
not the Cuban peso.
Private Investment Solves
American restrictions prevent private investment in Cuban biotech research
The Economist 2003
[The Economist. “Truly revolutionary: Cuba wants to profit from the biotechnology revolution.”
November 27, 2003. http://www.economist.com/node/2249479] WD
INTEREST in Cuba's unique brand of biotechnology has been growing since May 2002, when
America's undersecretary of state, John Bolton, said that the island was developing “a limited offensive biological warfare”
programme. The Cubans vehemently denied this. Whatever the truth of that claim, one thing is clear:
Fidel Castro's
scientists have been churning out an impressive line of genetically engineered products, from
fast-growing fish to recombinant vaccines and cancer therapeutics. Cuba has spent over 20 years and a
reported $1 billion building up its biotech industry. Unfortunately, the industry has little to show for this effort in the way of sales or
profits, largely because its marketing skills lag far behind its scientific prowess. This will not come as a shock to capitalists.
Biotechnology Havana, a big conference held in the Cuban capital this week, aimed to bring
together scientists and businessmen as part of the country's renewed search for risk capital
from abroad. There remain huge political obstacles to developing the industry's commercial
potential, not least the fact that Cuba is still a socialist dictatorship. Many foreign firms are
understandably deterred by the prospect of meddling government bureaucrats. Many others
are also put off by America's Helms-Burton act, which could shut them out of American
markets for doing business in Cuba. Yet so-called “receptor companies”, such as Canada's YM BioSciences (YMB),
which both develop and package Cuban products, have been busy agreeing joint-venture licences with some of Havana's leading
biotech centres.
One of the most promising drugs promoted this week is a novel anti-cancer
vaccine developed by YMB and Havana's Centre of Molecular Immunology. David Allan, boss of YMB,
says that the drug is evidence of a Cuban ability to “think outside the box” in approaching cancer
treatment. A big goal of this week's meeting was to dispel the belief that Cuban biotech has prospered by developing knock-off
versions of already patented drugs: a common complaint against the drugs industries of poorer countries. Cuban officials say their
country enforces international protocols, such as the World Trade Organisation's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights agreement. True, they admit, the
Cuban state does own the intellectual property embodied in the
products of the country's biotech research institutes. But this, they say, is little different to the institutional
ownership of patents in America by bodies such as university regents. The result in both cases, they say, can be
good, affordable drugs. The United Nations has not been slow to jump on the bandwagon. In 2000, a World Health
Organisation inspection approved Cuba's hepatitis B vaccine for use in the UN's vaccination
campaign. Also included in Cuba's growing intellectual-property portfolio is the patent on a
meningitis B vaccine, now undergoing further clinical trials with GlaxoSmithKline. Several other Canadian and European
biotech firms have followed YMB's lead, licensing Cuban technology. Given the interest generated at
Biotechnology Havana, many more such joint ventures may now be in the offing.
Cuba biotech limited
Cuba biotech is restricted from the global market.
Starr July 01, 2013-the codirector of the Center for Science and Medical Journalism and a
professor of journalism at Boston University.“THE CUBAN BIOTECH REVOLUTION”
http://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biotech_revol
ution.html)KG
Faced with economic calamity, Castro
did something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of
dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows how - Cuba"s economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure,
defies market analysis. One beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay
Institute, a vaccine lab in Havana. She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting herself and
her children before giving it to volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed a new ultracentrifuge, which
costs about $70,000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said, 'No. You"ll need 10.'" Campa and her
colleagues still have to scrimp and scrounge. Labs are filled with gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional
device from the US has traveled the "long way around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that it may well have
circled the globe. Scientists develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines. Each institute has its
own production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system. The Center of Genetic
Engineering and Biotechnology, La Habana, Cuba. Photo: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs Still, if
pharma is to become an economic engine, Cuban researchers acknowledge that they"ll have to join the international
business community. South-to-south
transfers simply don"t raise enough cash. That's where things get
years after it began, Washington's embargo remains a punishing weapon. Not
only are US companies banned from doing business with Cuba, but so are their foreign
subsidiaries. No freighter that visits a Cuban port may dock in the US for the next six months. For a Cuban
product to reach US companies, the makers have to prove a "compelling national interest" to
the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. Consolidation in the drug industry has made things worse, says Ismael
Clark, president of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. "You"d have a supplier for several years, and
suddenly you"d get a letter from the company saying, "We can"t supply you anymore because
our firm was bought by an American transnational."" The country has taken a few steps toward bridging
complicated. Forty
the gap. The American drug company SmithKline Beecham (now part of a British transnational) got permission to license
Campa's meningitis B vaccine in 1999. The terms of the deal are restrictive. SmithKline pays Cuba in products during
clinical trials (now in Phase II in Belgium) and in cash only if the drug proves to be viable.In July, CancerVax, a
Californiabased biotech company, got federal approval to test a Cuban vaccine that stimulates the
immune system against lung cancer cells. CancerVax is the first US business to receive such
approval. CancerVax staffers saw the research at an international conference, and then spent
two years lobbying Capitol Hill and Cuban-American interest groups. Still, naïveté remains the
real obstacle to a Cuban biotech century. Fidel's pharmacists lack slick brochures and goldentongued sales staff. Foreigners tend to find Cuba overly bureaucratic, especially when closing a
deal. "They just don't get capitalism," a diplomat tells me over coffee in Boston. "The elite may watch American TV and read The
Wall Street Journal on the Web, so they have a conversational familiarity. But on a fundamental level they don't get it and don't
want to get it. They still think there's something immoral about profit." Borroto, of CIGB, remembers talking to colleagues about
using patents to protect their expanding market. That was the moment Castro decided to pop into the lab. "What's all this about
patents? You"re sounding crazy!" he said. "We don"t like patents, remember?" Borroto stood his ground. "Even if you"re giving
medicine to the third world," he said, "you still need to protect yourself." Borroto knew he had to get better at the game. He sent his
staff to Canada to get MBAs, to learn the language of capitalism. Yet concepts like venture capital still escape him. "I can"t
understand how 80 percent of the biotech companies in the world make money without selling any products," he says. "How do
they do this? Hopeness," he guesses, using a neologism to stress the absurdity. "They sell hopeness." Asked for an annual report - a
basic necessity of international business- Agustin Lage, director of the Center for Molecular Immunology, merely says, "You know,
we"ve actually been meaning to produce one." Then he smiles and shrugs. It's like Castro said: They don"t really like patents. They
like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam
moneymakers, cures for baldness, impotence, or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS
medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases.
Ag Biotech k2 Famine
Biotechnology advances are key to solve mass starvation causing food
shortages
Leader-Post 8 – Top selling and award winning Canadian newspaper. (LP, “Biotechnology needed to solve food shortage,
says CEO”, 9/25/2008, http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=5b5c45c8-6ae5-4ac1-8992-270658d71ac8,
HW)
More genetically modified crops must be developed if agricultural producers are to meet the
challenge of global food shortages and climate change , a Biotech Week event was told Thursday.¶
“Technology prevented mass starvation in the 20th Century,’’ said David Dennis, CEO of Performance Plants
Inc., which operates plant biotechnology facilities in Kingston, Ont., Saskatoon and New York.¶ “Technology will solve the
problems of the 21st Century, I believe,’’ added Dennis, a former Queen’s University plant scientist, who founded PPI in
1995.¶ Dennis said the global agriculture industry is facing a number of challenges, namely water
shortages, climate change and yield volatility that threaten to cause large-scale crop failures
and mass starvation . ¶ Agriculture biotechnology -- genetically modifying plants to improve their productivity,
size and resistance to drought and disease -- could provide the solution to these challenges, he added.¶ For
example, PPI has used gene-modification technology to improve crop yields in corn, canola and soybeans by 15 to 25 per cent by
improving their drought resistance.¶ GM technology
has also been used to help protect crops from heat
stress and use water more efficiently, as well as increase biomass and carbohydrate content for biofuels crops.¶
Contrary to popular misconception, GM-modified crops have “no negative impacts’’ on the quality,
safety or quantity of the food they produce, Dennis added.¶ “The technology works under a lot of
conditions. There appears to be no negative impact of the technology at all.Ӧ Daren Coppock, CEO of
the National Association of Wheat Growers in the U.S., said widespread production of GM-modified wheat
could help offset the steadily declining acreage of cropland sown to wheat in the U.S. ¶ “Seven of
the last 10 years, we’ve consumed more wheat locally (in the U.S.) than we’ve produced. You just can’t keep doing that without
having a market response.’’¶ Corn and soybeans are moving west and north into traditional wheat-growing areas in the U.S., pushing
wheat acres to 30-year lows, Coppock said.¶ “Even
under the most optimistic scenario, (one expert) does
not see wheat acres exceeding 50 million when it used to be almost 80 (million).Ӧ The need to
improve crop yields is another “compelling case for biotechnology,” Coppock added. While wheat yields
have remained “flat” at around 40 bushels per acre, corn yields have been expanding four times faster -- thanks to biotechnology, he
said.¶ “The
longer we wait to deal with this problem, the bigger the hole we’ve dug for
ourselves. That’s why there’s a sense of urgency by our producers to get this (biotechnology)
ball rolling as soon as we can.’’¶ But even if GM-modified wheat varieties were approved tomorrow, it would take 10
years to get them into production, he added.¶ “Our board has set a goal of a 20-per-cent yield increase in 10 years, with the
fundamental assumption that biotech commercialization is part of that answer. We won’t get there without it.’’
Biotech advancement is key to prevent food shortages and food prices - saves
millions of lives
Go 8 – Executive order of PhilStar, Philippines based news source. (Marianne, “Biotechnology pushed to ease food shortage”,
6/10/2008, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/66955/biotechnology-pushed-ease-food-shortage, HW)
Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap told delegates at an international agriculture conference in Italy that biotechnology
is key
to the world’s quest for food security amid the current shortage in the global food supply and
escalating food prices.¶ An agriculture official clarified that it was not a blanket endorsement of the use of genetically
modified organisms.¶ The Philippines also appealed to international donors to increase fund support for the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Laguna, to improve agricultural productivity research.¶ In his statement at the recent Special
Meeting on the Food Crisis convened by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Ambassador to the UN Hilario
Davide Jr. urged donor institutions to increase funding for the IRRI as part of the measures to curb the global food crisis.¶ Yap cited
the program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) in the
Philippines that applied biotechnology to raise the
quality and quantity of food crops through the development of varieties and seeds that are
virus and pest-resistant which could survive dry spells and flash floods induced by climate
change.¶ “Ultimately, biotechnology has evolved to be the hope in securing food for the
world’s growing population,” Yap said last week during an international agricultural biotechnology meeting hosted by
the United States and Egypt at the sidelines of a three-day global food summit of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).¶ US
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, Professor Magdy Madkour of the Ains Shams University of Egypt, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) Administrator Henrietta Fore, C.S. Karim of the Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh, Dr. Shivaji
Pandey, director of the FAO Plant Protection Division, Minister Laurent Sedogo of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries of
Burkina Faso and Minister Hilary Onek of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of Uganda were among the
panelists in the biotechnology forum.¶ The meeting was held in between sessions of the FAO-hosted High Level Conference on
World Food Security in Rome which was attended by heads of states and other top government officials from over 40 countries plus
representatives from multilateral financial institutions.¶ The conference was held to discuss strategies and initiatives that would
squarely address the new challenges to global food security.¶ Yap pointed out that the
biotechnology revolution has
benefited Philippine agriculture in terms of increasing “overall productivity through increased
farm yields and competitive agricultural products that would translate into higher farmers’
income.”¶ He said “biotechnology is not the panacea to all our food security needs and economic development crusades.”¶
“We consider it (biotechnology) as one of the means to pursue agricultural modernization and
achieve our national economic goals,” Yap said. Yap explained that the country’s policy includes measures to comply
with international standards on the safe use of genetically modified organism (GMO).¶ “We have enough protocol that comply with
the United Nations policy on the safe use of GMO products. Be that as it may, we have enough non-GMO products right now that
deliver bigger yields for our farmers so we want to focus on the propagation of these products first,” Yap said.¶ Bureau of Plant
Industry (BPI) Director Joel Rudinas, however, clarified that biotechnology involves a wide range of operations ranging from tissue
culture to genetic manipulation and the government’s policy is not a blanket endorsement of GMO.¶ Rudinas admitted that the
government allows certain GMOs but subject to strict rules.¶ Any application for the use of GMO seeds has to undergo a long
process by the BPI before commercial distribution.¶ Yap said the
DA has applied biotechnology to produce highvalue products from traditional crops such as rice, papaya, and coconut, improving carabao
reproduction and upgrading the country’s livestock industry, boost fish production.¶ Davide. the
Philippines Permanent representative to the UN, urged the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Internal Fund for
Agricultural Development and development partners to donate more research funds for IRRI.¶ “The
research of IRRI, the
world’s main repository of rice seeds as well as genetic and other information about rice—the
crop that feeds nearly half of the peoples of the world—has been, unfortunately,
tremendously slowed down because of cuts in funding for agricultural research,” he said.¶ The envoy
cited the case of the brown plant hopper, a tiny fly that has caused havoc across East Asia.¶ “Damage to rice crops which
has caused reduced production output would have been prevented if only IRRI’s budget for
research had not been cut or reduced,” he said.¶ He cited IRRI reports that the brown plant hopper is multiplying by
the billions and chewing through rice paddies in East Asia, threatening the diets of many poor people.¶ Davide said China, the
world’s biggest rice producer, has announced that it was struggling to control the rapid spread of these insects which could destroy
as much as 20 percent of a harvest. ¶ Although no fewer than 14 new types of genetic resistance varieties of rice have been
discovered, Davide said the budget cuts prevented IRRI from moving further to develop more hybrid rice varieties. ¶ “If
money is
available for research, IRRI can accomplish the task in four to seven years and save millions of
people from hunger, from death,” he said
Biotechnology is key to avoid otherwise inevitable food shortages
Ahmad 12 – Professor in the department of botany, University of Kashmir, India. (Parvaiz, “Biotechnology as an Aid for Crop
Improvement to Overcome Food Shortage”, 2012, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4116-4_9, HW)
World’s population has crossed 6.5 billion with majority of human beings living in developing
or under developing countries. Clearly, food security in such countries will be a primary
concern over the next few decades. However, options for increased food production to meet
this population pressure are limited because most arable land is already under cultivation,
and in many areas land use cannot be further intensified without a risk to the long-term
productivity. Agricultural land use has been especially intense in recent years because of rapid urbanization and
increasing environmental pollution. The ultimate need is to use newer technologies which could help
us to curb this food insecurity. Biotechnology is globally recognized as a rapidly emerging,
complex and far reaching new technology. It has revolutionized all the fields of life. Recent discoveries
and technical innovations in the field of genomics and biotechnology are revealing the full
complement of genes in crops, the ability to define genetic variation and use DNA markers to
follow chromosome segments with known functions through breeding programmes are leading to new
efficiencies in breeding. The ability to isolate and redesign genes and transfer them into different plants also
offers the breeder solutions to several key limitations. The convergence of advances in biologygenomics, proteomics, bioinformatics and information technologies is driving the emergence of a new bio-economy. By
the usage of this technology we have achieved remarkable success in increasing crop
productivity, improving crop quality as well as overcoming food shortage. Additionally the
genetically engineered crops have shown a remarkable potential to tackle some of the world’s most challenging
socioeconomic problems which are more prevalent in the developing world than in the industrialized nations.
Cuban agricultural biotech is uniquely good – best technology and zero
corporate interference
Global Research News 12 – center for research on globalization. (GRN, “The Achievements of Cuba’s “Ecological
Agriculture””, 12/26/2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-achievements-of-cubas-ecological-agriculture/5316868, HW)
All over the world, and especially in Latin America, the
island’s agroecological production levels and the
associated research efforts along with innovative farmer organizational schemes have been
observed with great interest. No other country in the world has achieved this level of success
with a form of agriculture that uses the ecological services of biodiversity and reduces food
miles, energy use, and effectively closes local production and consumption cycles. Cuba has
invested millions in biotechnological research and development for agriculture through its Center for
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) and a network of institutions across the country. Cuban biotechnology is
free from corporate control and intellectual property-right regimes that exist in other
countries. Cuban biotechnologists affirm that their biosafety system sets strict biological and environmental security norms.
Given this autonomy and advantages biotechnological innovations could efficiently be applied
to solve problems such as viral crop diseases or drought tolerance for which agroecological
solutions are not yet available. In2009 the CIGB planted in Yagüajay, Sancti Spiritus, three hectares of genetically
modified corn (transgenic corn FR-Bt1) on an experimental basis. This variety is supposed to suppress populations of the damaging
larval stage of the “palomilla del maíz” moth (Spodoptera frugiperda, also known as the fall armyworm). By 2009 a total of 6,000
hectares were planted with the transgenic (also referred to as genetically modified, or GM) variety across several provinces. From an
agroecological perspective it is perplexing that the first transgenic variety to be tested in Cuba is Bt corn, given that in the island
there are so many biological control alternatives to regulate lepidopteran pests. The
diversity of local maize varieties
include some that exhibit moderate-to-high levels of pest resistance, offering significant
opportunities to increase yields with conventional plant breeding and known agroecological management strategies.
Many centers for multiplication of insect parasites and pathogens (CREEs, Centros de Reproducción de Entomófagos y
Entomopatógenos) produce Bacillus thuringiensis (a microbial insecticide) and Trichogramma (small wasps), both highly effective
against moths such as the palomilla. In addition, mixing corn with other crops such as beans or sweet potatoes in polycultures
produces significantly less pest attack than maize grown in monocultures. This also increases the land equivalent ratio (growing
more total crops in a given area of land) and protects the soil.
Biotech crop engineering is safe and gives huge crop yield increases – need to
do it as soon as possible
Tohir 11 – Leading science writer, Jakarta Post. (Winarno, “Food shortages and biotechnology
solution”, 3/7/11, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/07/food-shortages-and-biotechnology-solution.html, HW)
However, the practical reality is that biotechnological
applications have the potential to dramatically
increase both crop yields and resistance to plant diseases like downy mildew. Can you imagine
planting rice that may only need to be watered once a month? Or planting corn without having
to worry about plant diseases threatening your crops during the rainy season? Well, these are
now real possibilities through biotechnology. ¶ Apart from the definition, people want to know how
biotechnology works and, in particular, how high-tech applications can produce food that is perfectly fit for human consumption.¶ A
key value of biotechnological applications lies in the creation of transgenic crops — crops that
have been genetically engineered to contain genes from more than one plant — that are
resistant to pests and extreme climate. These offer a whole range of benefits — increased yields, higher quality
crops, and less pesticide use, which in turn reduces the possibility of environmental damage, among others.¶ Basically,
biotechnology could help the government meet its targets for self sufficiency in food
production, increase competition in the agriculture sector, and improve farmers’ welfare. ¶
Any worries about product safety can be debunked with no reported health issues by the USmade soybeans that are genetically engineered and consumed in our daily lives. The technology also allows bioscientists to determine which plant genes will be incorporated into crops. This means that any kind of religious norms will
be duly observed. ¶ Likewise, there should be no fears of the domination of the sector by large multinationals. There is a huge
opportunity for our own people to develop these technologies and product innovation. ¶ For users, the government should make
financial support available for farmers and entrepreneurs who choose to adopt biotechnological solutions. The
advantages of
biotechnology represent a strong case for the adoption of technologies created by the
industry. As a means of safeguarding the welfare of our nation, we need to begin the
implementation of the best practical biotechnology solutions sooner rather than later.
US Ag Biotech Fails
US agricultural biotech industry is dominated by Monsanto – destroys
innovation and yields
Wilcox 6/8/13 - served as a director of Kaiser since July 2006. Mr. Wilcox has been an active investor in, on the board of
directors of, or an executive consultant for, a number of metals and energy companies since 2005. From June 2005 to December
2011, Mr. Wilcox served as Chief Executive Officer of Summit Power Alternative Resources. (Brett, “Monsanto: Destroying American
Agriculture One Crop At A Time”, http://www.runningthecountry.com/monsanto-and-usda-destroying-american-agriculture-onecrop-at-a-time/#.Udjr7zs3tPI, HW)
U.S. wheat farmers are holding Monsanto responsible for creating and patenting a product
that is so toxic to farmers’ financial health that its mere presence on a single U.S. farm results
in consumer rejection and consequent decreased value for all wheat on every farm in the
U.S.A. 1¶ What product could possibly produce such devastating financial losses? Monsanto’s Roundup resistant,
genetically modified wheat.¶ Naturally, Monsanto sees itself as the victim in this outrageous situation, even suggesting
that villainous souls may have intentionally planted Monsanto patented wheat to “sabotage” Monsanto. 2¶ There’s frightening irony
in the fact that Monsanto created genetically modified wheat with the intent of selling it to farmers, and after that same wheat
shows up in a farmer’s field, Monsanto suggests that saboteurs are out to destroy Monsanto.¶ This
isn’t the first time
farmers have had to bear the cost of irresponsible biotechnology giants.¶ “The 2000 release of Aventis
SA’s StarLink corn cost as much as $288 million in lost revenue and a yearlong drop in the grain’s price, according to a 2008 report by
the Government Accountability Office. The
2006 release of Bayer AG’s Liberty Link rice cost as much as
$1.29 billion in lost exports, food recalls and other expenses, the GAO said, citing an
environmental advocacy group. Bayer in 2011 agreed to pay $750 million to about 11,000 U.S. rice farmers who sued
the company.” 3¶ Once again, there is frightening irony in Monsanto’s demeaning use of the phrase “tractor-chasing lawyers” to
describe farmers who seek legitimate compensation due to real financial losses farmers have and will experience due to Monsanto’s
unwanted transgenic wheat.¶ Dr. Mercola states, “Monsanto
employs an arsenal of private investigators and
agents who secretly videotape farmers, snatch crop samples from their land and even fly
helicopters overhead to spy — all to catch farmers saving or sharing seeds. As of 2005
Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10-million budget solely to investigate and prosecute
farmers for patent infringement.” 4¶ Some of the farmers Monsanto sues for patent violation didn’t want and didn’t
buy Monsanto seeds at all. Rather, Monsanto’s seed or pollen contaminated their farms. That fact doesn’t deter Monsanto from
suing these farmers. 4¶ Suing farmers is a lucrative revenue source for Monsanto. As of November 28, 2012,
Monsanto has raked in $23,675,820.99 from farmers. But that figure doesn’t include Monsanto’s gains from confidential, out-ofcourt settlements. According to Center For Food Safety, “Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in
In light of Monsanto’s allegation of potential “sabotage” in
the case of their genetically modified wheat, one has to wonder how they came up with such
an idea. Do Monsanto investigators spread Monsanto seeds while trespassing on farmers’ property? Do Monsanto investigators
get paid on commission? Do they earn a percentage on court victories?¶ There’s more irony in the fact that while
Monsanto claims no responsibility for the Monsanto wheat found in Oregon, Monsanto is
currently conducting open-field GM wheat testing in Hawaii and North Dakota. 6¶ Of course that
means Monsanto is actively planning to unleash yet another version or versions of GM
wheat—wheat that will once again result in lost market share for U.S. farmers. 7 Five million Brazilian
settlements of these seed piracy matters.” 5¶
farmers have sued Monsanto, and yet Monsanto continues to cram its unwanted products down the throats of the world. 9¶ Of
course, there’s nothing ironic about any of this; it’s
just business as usual at Monsanto.
Current US agricultural biotech leader Monsanto hurts crop yields and exports
Dreibus 5/30/13 – reporter for Bloomberg news. (Tony, “Wheat Falls as Japan Suspends U.S. Imports on Biotech Crop
Find”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/wheat-drops-as-global-crop-outlook-counters-u-s-planting-delays.html, HW)
Wheat in Chicago fell, headed for the biggest monthly loss since February, after Japan
suspended imports from the U.S., where the government discovered an unapproved,
genetically modified strain growing in an Oregon field.¶ Japan, the biggest buyer of U.S. wheat
behind Mexico, suspended imports of western-white wheat and feed wheat from the U.S., said Hiromi Iwahama, the director
for grain trade and operation at the agriculture ministry. Scientists said the rogue wheat in Oregon was a strain
tested from 1998 to 2005 by Monsanto Co. (MON), the world’s top seedmaker. Japan also
canceled a purchase of 24,926 metric tons of white wheat.¶ The finding may hurt U.S. export
prospects at a time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expecting record global
production, boosted by a 48 percent increase in Russian output and a 40 percent gain from Ukraine. Exports from the
U.S. probably will fall 9.8 percent to 25.2 million tons in the year that starts on June 1,
according to the USDA.¶ “This is not something we need to see when exports are suffering anyway,” Darrell Holaday, the
president of Advanced Market Concepts in Wamego, Kansas, said in a telephone interview. “It’s a negative story during a negative
export time, and if the Black Sea keeps getting rain it’s going to be a tough, competitive wheat market.”¶ Wheat futures for July
delivery fell 0.6 percent to settle at $6.9875 a bushel at 1:15 p.m. on the Chicago Board of Trade. The price is down 4.4 percent this
month, partly because the USDA on May 10 forecast global growers would harvest 701.1 million tons.¶ Import Estimate¶ Japan
is
Asia’s largest wheat buyer after Indonesia, with imports forecast at 5.89 million tons in the
2012-2013 season, little changed from the previous period, according to the London-based International Grains Council.¶
Japan imported 5.62 million tons of milling wheat last fiscal year, of which 3.26 million tons, or 58 percent, were from the U.S.
Canada was the second-largest supplier to Japan, with 1.32 million tons, while Australia was the third with 1.03 million. Japan
imported 867,000 tons of western-white wheat from the U.S. in the year ended March 31,
data from the Agriculture Ministry showed.¶ “If there really are major concerns and Japan continues to cancel and
buy elsewhere, that could weigh on Chicago,” said Paul Gaffet, an analyst at Offre & Demande Agricole in Bourges, France, which
advises 5,000 farmers on crop sales.¶ The USDA said yesterday it was investigating how the unapproved seeds were growing nine
years after St. Louis-based Monsanto ended its wheat program.
Terminal !’s
Famine Impact
Food insecurity causes global instability, war, and billions of deaths,
threatening extinction.
Winnail, Ph.D., M.P.H, FROM THE WORLD AHEAD, September-October 1996,
http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm
"No other
economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.... Food prices
spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread
political upheavals"-- even wars. The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related
As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes,
to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled "Heading for
Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms-could be catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk
of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor. With
world food stores dwindling, grain production
leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world, the next couple of years will
be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal.
However, poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions
over the edge. Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to
what is happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse
Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people!
Although famines have occurred at various times in the past, the new famines will
happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in
recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is
before they get better.
it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the
These are
pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an
ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However, droughts and shrinking grain
threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases, and the demands of an exploding population?
stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. According to the U.N.'s studies, all 17 major fishing areas in the world
have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. In fact, nine of these areas are in serious decline. The realization that we
may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one . It's troubling because seafood-the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. In the early 1970s, the Peruvian anchovy catch--
If this happens
on a global scale, we will be in deep trouble. This precarious situation is also without
historical precedent!
the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing.
Famine causes extinction
George Plumb, Environmental Activist, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?” 5/18/2008,
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI
D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05
Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global
cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food
Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will
Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some
countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time
the problem will not be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year!
help.
Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods — mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal
feed. Poor
harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed.
High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from
growing food crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that
is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is
unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge is not simply to deal with a
temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends
whose cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of
civilization. If food security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political
instability will spread and the number of failing states will likely increase dramatically,
threatening the very stability of civilization itself."
World War III results as countries use weapons to fight for food
Calvin 1998 (William H.; Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences – University of
Washington) January "The Great Climate Flip-Flop" Atlantic Monthly 281:1 EBSCO
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some
powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because
their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across
the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before
they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources,
driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the
same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide
problem – and could lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to
analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day
Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it
lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Billions will die
Tampa Tribune 96
Tampa Tribune, 1-20-96
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet
said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International
Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17
demand for the third consecutive year,
percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling,
Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a
margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent.
"Even
if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that
import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out
of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He
also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food.
Bioterror Impact
Biotechnology solves bioterror
Bailey, Science Correspond for Reason Magazine, 1 [Ronald, award-winning science correspondent
for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book
Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The
Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the
personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years. 11/7/1, “The Best
Biodefense,” Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense]
But Cipro and other antibiotics are just a small part of the arsenal that could one day soon be deployed in defending America against
biowarfare. Just consider
what’s in the pipeline now that could be used to protect Americans
against infectious diseases, including bioterrorism. A Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association
survey found 137 new medicines for infectious diseases in drug company research and
development pipelines, including 19 antibiotics and 42 vaccines. With regard to anthrax, instead of having to rush a sample
to a lab where it takes hours or even days to culture, biotech companies have created test strips using
antibody technologies that can confirm the presence of anthrax in 15 minutes or less, allowing
decontamination and treatment to begin immediately. Similar test strips are being developed for the detection of
smallpox as well. The biotech company EluSys Therapeutics is working on an exciting technique which
would "implement instant immunity." EluSys joins two monoclonal antibodies chemically together so that they act
like biological double-sided tape. One antibody sticks to toxins, viruses, or bacteria while the other binds to human red blood cells.
The red blood cells carry the pathogen or toxin to the liver for destruction and return unharmed to the normal blood circulation. In
one test, the
EluSys treatment reduced the viral load in monkeys one million-fold in less than an
hour. The technology could be applied to a number of bioterrorist threats, such as dengue
fever, Ebola and Marburg viruses, and plague. Of course, the EluSys treatment would not just be useful for
responding to bioterrorist attacks, but also could treat almost any infection or poisoning. Further down the
development road are technologies that could rapidly analyze a pathogen’s DNA, and then
guide the rapid synthesis of drugs like the ones being developed by EluSys that can bind, or disable, segments of DNA
crucial to an infectious organism's survival. Again, this technology would be a great boon for treating infectious diseases and
might be a permanent deterrent to future bioterrorist attacks. Seizing Bayer’s patent now wouldn’t just
cost that company and its stockholders a little bit of money (Bayer sold $1 billion in Cipro last year), but would reverberate
throughout the pharmaceutical research and development industry. If governments begin to seize patents on the pretext of
addressing alleged public health emergencies, the investment in research that would bring about new and effective treatments
could dry up. Investors and pharmaceutical executives couldn’t justify putting $30 billion annually into already risky and uncertain
research if they couldn’t be sure of earning enough profits to pay back their costs. Consider what happened during the Clinton
health care fiasco, which threatened to impose price controls on prescription drugs in the early 1990s: Growth in research spending
dropped off dramatically from 10 percent annually to about 2 percent per year. A
far more sensible and farsighted
way to protect the American public from health threats, including bioterrorism, is to
encourage further pharmaceutical research by respecting drug patents. In the final analysis, America’s best
biodefense is a vital and profitable pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.
That solves Extinction
Steinbrenner, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 97
(John Steinbrenner, Senior Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22-1997, Lexis, 6-31-13)
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential
weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are
alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not
independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple
observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the
damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably
predictable manner. Even
before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate
the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential
component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose
scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback
is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most
likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for
deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could
efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying
cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918
influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not
necessarily its outer limit.
***Environment***
2AC Mods
Oil Spills – Econ
A Cuban oil spill causes economic decline, undermines the oil industry, and
destroys the environment – conventional safeguards aren’t in place
Bert and Clayton 12
[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton,
Fellow for Energy and National Security, Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012, “Addressing
the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515]
WD
The imminent drilling of Cuba's first offshore oil well raises the prospect of a large-scale oil
spill in Cuban waters washing onto U.S. shores. Washington should anticipate this possibility
by implementing policies that would help both countries' governments stem and clean up an
oil spill effectively. These policies should ensure that both the U.S. government and the
domestic oil industry are operationally and financially ready to deal with any spill that
threatens U.S. waters. These policies should be as minimally disruptive as possible to the
country's broader Cuba strategy. The Problem A Chinese-built semisubmersible oil rig leased by
Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters in January 2012 to drill Cuba's first
exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas
reserves are substantial—somewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and
upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas. Although the United States typically welcomes
greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries that are not members of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a surge in Cuban oil production would complicate the
United States' decades-old effort to economically isolate the Castro regime. Deepwater drilling
off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy
miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that
triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features,
situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A
spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.
Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to
address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how
to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where
the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in.
Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling
move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the
Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fastmoving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be
surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four
days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render
standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has been
forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect
the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to
lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound
drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little
legal recourse. The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo
complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with
few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide
equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory. Shortfalls in U.S. federal
regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further problem. The Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against damages stemming
from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, BP was
liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United States.
Were any of the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would
fall to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully undercapitalized. OPA 90
limits the OSLTF from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs,
subject to a few exceptions, and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than
$150 million. The Way Forward As a first step, the United States should discuss contingency
planning for a Cuban oil spill at the regular multiparty talks it holds with Mexico, the Bahamas,
Cuba, and others per the Cartagena Convention. The Caribbean Island Oil Pollution Response
and Cooperation Plan provides an operational framework under which the United States and
Cuba can jointly develop systems for identifying and reporting an oil spill, implement a means of
restricting the spread of oil, and identify resources to respond to a spill. Washington should also
instruct the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct basic spill response coordination with its counterparts
in Cuba. The United States already has operational agreements in place with Mexico, Canada,
and several countries in the Caribbean that call for routine exercises, emergency response
coordination, and communication protocols. It should strike an agreement with Cuba that is
substantively similar but narrower in scope, limited to basic spill-oriented advance coordination
and communication. Before that step can be taken, U.S. lawmakers may need to amend the
Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 to allow for limited, spill-related coordination and
communication with the Cuban government. Next, President Barack Obama should issue an
export-only industry-wide general license for oil spill response in Cuban waters, effective
immediately. Issuing that license does not require congressional authorization. The license
should allow offshore oil companies to do vital spill response work in Cuban territory, such as
capping a well or drilling a relief well. Oil service companies, such as Halliburton, should be
included in the authorization. Finally, Congress should alter existing oil spill compensation
policy. Lawmakers should amend OPA 90 to ensure there is a responsible party for oil spills from
a foreign offshore unit that pollutes or threatens to pollute U.S. waters, like there is for vessels.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) have sponsored such
legislation. Lawmakers should eliminate the requirement for the Coast Guard to obtain
congressional approval on expenditures above $150 million for spills of national significance (as
defined by the National Response Plan). And President Obama should appoint a commission to
determine the appropriate limit of liability cap under OPA 90, balancing the need to compensate
victims with the desire to retain strict liability for polluters. There are two other, less essential
measures U.S. lawmakers may consider that would enable the country to respond more adeptly
to a spill. Installing an early-response system based on acoustic, geophysical, or other
technologies in the Straits of Florida would immediately alert the U.S. Coast Guard about a well
blowout or other unusual activity. The U.S. Department of Energy should find out from Repsol
about the characteristics of Cuban crude oil, which would help U.S. authorities predict how the
oil would spread in the case of a well blowout. Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in
Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S.
law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The
Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed
booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies
would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and
other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with
Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow
response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and
environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy
toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups
opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing
U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory.
However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters
would not break new ground or materially alter broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years,
Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern. The United States routinely
coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of Florida as well as to
combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on Caribbean
storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges
that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or
military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger
emanating from Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the
blessing of the United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of
advance coordination and preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go
beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these precautions, the United States risks a
second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.
Economic decline causes war – diversionary theory and empirical evidence
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] WD
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 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use 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 theory" suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996),
DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing
that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller
(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary
tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic
support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the 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.
BioD
The U.S. and Cuba share biodiversity and must work together to save species
close to extinction
Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-withoutborders)KG
The ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States
provide the opportunity and the need for the two nations to take an enhanced collaborative,
bilateral approach to addressing shared issues. Cuba lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S.
state of Florida, and the two countries’ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and the
United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations of organisms to
diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, exotic species invade,
disease-causing species disperse, and rare species go extinct in the face of growing habitat
modification. The living components of this shared environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by
natural or man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do such
potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical storms. Such events provide
the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two
nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United States, such as black-and-white
warblers. Many insects also migrate between the United States and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly.
Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while
turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida
manatee, also swim between U.S. and Cuban waters. Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal
species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally Threatened by the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Because only a small fraction of the world’s plants
and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of threatened species that
are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger. Even with what is known
already, there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring
and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the
American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.
BioD loss leads to extinction
Coyne and Hoekstra ‘7 - jerry coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the university of
chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is john l. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at harvard
university and curator of mammals at harvard's museum of comparative zoology. ,“diversity lost as we head towards a lonely
planet“, weekend australian, november 10, lexis
Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming
increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As
extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and
so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most
celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures,
melting icecaps and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact
between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful
diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients . We
have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide
plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil
formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet,
through intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity
into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in
North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbours and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by
single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks
to these developments, soils will erode
and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural
yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover,
ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells
disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted
and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many
humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and
produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species
extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous
amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided
by ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been estimated to be
as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries
combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life
as we know it would be impossible
if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its
present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote
swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare
South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants,
not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of
worm: its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent),
decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical
goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective
against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin. More
than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy
shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful
alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000
plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical
properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates,
it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth
saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained,
especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our
hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and
intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what
could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all
got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic
kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the
soul. But whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth
extinction.
We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures
are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of
sweltering heat, failing crops and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility
that we are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby
existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences
of what we have done to nature; not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.
Ocean BioD
US - Cuba cooperation would help solve for growing threats to ocean
biodiversity
Luxner 09-- Larry Luxner is news editor of The Washington Diplomat and editor of CubaNews. His specialty is Latin America
and the Middle East, and he's written more than 2,000 articles for publications ranging from National Journal to Saudi Aramco
World. (“Experts urge joint US-Cuba marine conservation effort”—5/2009 http://www.luxner.com/cgibin/view_article.cgi?articleID=1751)
Saltwater fish, migratory birds,
turtles and marine mammals couldn’t care less about the political
differences that separate the United States and Cuba. But all could benefit from an
improvement in bilateral ties and scientific cooperation, say experts meeting Apr. 28 at the Brookings
Institution in Washington. Some 80 people attended the event, titled “A New Era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal
Resources Conservation.” At the seminar, 10 experts outlined a new path for the United States and Cuba to protect diverse marine
resources in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. “ Cuba
is slowly coming into the 21st
century, and as it does, it’ll have to deal with tourism, nickel mining, crumbling buildings and
pollution in Havana Bay. All of these things must be addressed before it’s too late,” said Vicki
Huddleston, a Brookings foreign policy fellow who headed the U.S. Interests Section in Havana from 1999 to 2002. “There is
nothing else the U.S. can do that really makes sense, other than to have a long-range, strategic
vision of a policy of critical and constructive engagement,” she said, pointing out that if Cuba were removed from
the State Department terrorist list, various types of computers and high-tech equipment useful in environmental and coastal
protection could be exported to Cuba. The meeting, organized by the Environmental Defense Fund, came only two weeks after
President Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and announced plans to revisit U.S. policy on Cuba. EDF has asked
that environmental protection be among the top priorities in future Cuban policy for the administration. “The
U.S. and Cuba
share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of managing them ,” said
EDF senior attorney Dan Whittle. “More information ex-change among academics, scientists and
conservation groups will help both countries do a better job of managing coastal and marine
re-sources. The sooner we work together, the sooner we’ll see benefits for the people,
environment and economy in both countries.” Whittle added that expanded scientific and management
cooperation can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations,
habitats for migratory birds and biodiversity . “For the last nine years, I’ve been asked what Cuba is doing to
protect the environment. In my opinion, they’re making great progress,” he said. “Like any country, the challenge to protect the
environment during times of economic crisis is tremendous.” In 1994, Cuba’s National Assembly established its first-ever cabinetlevel ministry for the environment. More recently, it has begun looking into alternative energy sources. “Cuba is experiencing an
energy revolution. They’re dependent on Venezuela, but very much in the thick of an effort to become more energy-independent.
Part of that equation is more wind, more solar, more biomass.” Whittle said that over the last 14 months, EDF staffers have joined
Cuban scientists at the University of Matanzas to exploit ocean energy. “Our team has been working on how to do it right,” he said.
“We’re also evaluating the impact of oil and gas exploration, sharing our research with Cuban colleagues. This cooperative research
is one example of how people in both countries benefit. We would like to facilitate more and more of this kind of joint research. It’s
important to de-link our political position towards Cuba from our environmental policies.” David Hermann, chief of the State Department’s Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, stressed the “extreme vulnerability” of the Caribbean to climate change and other
environmental challenges. “We are committed to the region and its security,” he said, adding that “EPA is trying to start a Latin
American Federation of Coasts and Estuaries through our national estuary in San Juan, Puerto Rico. And if things work out the way
we’re hoping they will, it’s something that potentially Cuba could participate in.” Under
current U.S. law, travel for
American scientists to Cuba is extremely limited, and the State Department rarely grants
Cuban scientists visas to conduct research or attend professional meeting in the United States.
“ An important first step toward managing our shared marine resources would be to greatly
increase the flow of information and expertise between the two countries ,” said Huddleston. Added
Dr. Douglas Rader, chief oceans scientist at EDF: “I have only a single message today: that we cannot get marine conservation right,
especially in the southeastern U.S., without factoring in Cuba. “Many Americans are aware of the dramatic beauty of this island and
its unbelievable biodiversity — whether you like birds, manatees, lizards or even snails — but fewer Americans are aware of the
dramatic linkages between our place and that place.” Even without a lifting of the embargo, the Obama administration has the
authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. “There
is essentially no
limit to the conservation activities in Cuba that President Obama can authorize, whether they
take the form of government-to-government initiatives or the authorization of American NGO
projects in that country,” said Bob Muse, a Wash-ington attorney specializing in Cuba issues. “It is hard to think of
a more constructive use of the president’s foreign-affairs prerogative than the preservation of
the marine environment the United States shares with Cuba.” A leading national nonprofit organization, EDF
represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, EDF has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector
partnerships to solve key environmental problems.
Ocean biodiversity loss causes extinction
Craig 03
[Robin Kundis, Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Professor at Florida State University College of
Law and leading environmental law scholar, Winter 2003, “Taking Steps Toward Marine
Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” Lexis]
WD
The world’s oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider
valuable. “Occupying more than seventy percent of the Earth’s surface and ninety-five percent
of the biosphere,” oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and
pharmaceuticals; life support processes , including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and
weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people
worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity’s wellbeing: “The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the
locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that
create and maintain our atmosphere and climate.” Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have
been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many
people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world’s
seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. (It continues...)
More generally , “ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all
the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements”. In a
very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the
planet’s ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the
functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem’s
ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity,
“indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. (It continues...) We may not know
much about the sea, but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we
will take most of the biosphere with us . The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex
and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving
out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless,
wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 Mo re importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
Coral Reefs
US-Cuba cooperation key to protect coral reefs
SFTS January 16, 2013 (Sailors for the Sea educates and engages the boating community in the
worldwide protection of the oceans. “PROTECTING CUBA'S ABUNDANT CORAL REEFS”
http://sailorsforthesea.org/About-Sailors-for-the-Sea/Press-Releases/Protecting-CubasAbundant-Coral-Reefs.aspx)
As noted in the essay, "Although many of the world's best-known reefs face destruction in the
face of global warming and other threats, large portions of the Gardens of the Queen remain
remarkably healthy. Relative isolation from human influence helps make Cuba's coral reefs
unique. Protecting these ecosystems - and species that rely on them - requires careful
collaboration. Well-designed MPAs, combined with innovative fisheries management, are the
foundation for both sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries and a thriving ecotourism sector." With only the narrow Florida Straits separating Cuba and the United States,
both countries understand the importance of collaborating on marine conservation and
fisheries management. Cubans realize that the long-term value of maintaining healthy coral
reefs is higher than the short-term profits that may come from tourism development, unless
tourism and conservation are well balanced. The Cuban National Center for Protected Areas
has set an ambitious target of designating 25 percent of their coastal waters in MPAs. Already
10-15 percent are officially approved as MPAs. Setting aside critical habitat for the many species
that live among the coastal waters and coral reefs is the first step. MPAs are an important
conservation tool but they are most effective when combined with other fishery management
tools - community-based fishery cooperatives or territorial user rights for fishing (TURFs).
Together they incentivize fishermen to rebuild and sustain fish stocks. The combination of
protected areas and sound fishery management that motivates fishermen to help protect the
parks and fish populations is critical. Most fishermen and local residents around the Gardens of
the Queens support tighter restrictions on fishing and understand that the greater investment in
science within the park has resulted in improved fisheries management in recent years.
Coral reefs sustain biodiversity
Bird 96 Oceanic Research Group, Jonathan, Coral Reefs: Rainforests of the Sea
(Script), http://www.oceanicresearch.org/education/films/crrainspt.html - ML
The larger marine creatures -- like whales, dolphins, and sharks -- get most of the attention. But
some of the tiniest animals in the sea may be the most remarkable -- and most essential for
supporting marine life.
Within the world's oceans, the greatest variety of life is found on amazing living structures
called coral reefs. These fragile reefs play a critical role in sustaining a thriving ocean habitat,
especially in tropical oceans. They also provide many benefits to humans as well. Yet, coral
reefs are built by tiny animals, each smaller than a pencil eraser.
BioD loss leads to extinction
Coyne and Hoekstra ‘7 - jerry coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the university of
chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is john l. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at harvard
university and curator of mammals at harvard's museum of comparative zoology. ,“diversity lost as we head towards a lonely
planet“, weekend australian, november 10, lexis
Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming
increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As
extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and
so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most
celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures,
melting icecaps and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact
between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful
diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients . We
have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide
plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil
formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet,
through intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity
into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in
North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbours and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by
single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks
to these developments, soils will erode
and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural
yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover,
ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells
disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted
and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many
humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and
produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species
extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous
amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided
by ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been estimated to be
as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries
combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life
as we know it would be impossible
if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its
present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote
swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare
South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants,
not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of
worm: its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent),
decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical
goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective
against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin. More
than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy
shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful
alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000
plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical
properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates,
it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth
saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained,
especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our
hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and
intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what
could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all
got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic
kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the
soul. But whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth
extinction.
We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures
are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of
sweltering heat, failing crops and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility
that we are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby
existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences
of what we have done to nature; not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.
Extensions
Brink
Biodiversity loss on the brink- but it’s not inevitable. Now is key.
Adrain Bishop, Journalist and editor for over 25 years, and owner of Yellow Online Media. May
2, 2012. “Biodiversity loss from species extinctions may rival pollution and climate change
impacts” Earth Times. http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/biodiversity-loss-species-extinctiontop-driver-global-change/1960/
Species extinction and loss of biodiversity could be as devastating for the earth as climate
change and air pollution. That's the finding of a new study by a group of scientists from nine countries. The research aims
for the first time to comprehensively compare the consequences of biodiversity loss with other possible environmental issues
caused by humans. Ecologist and University of Michigan assistant professor, Bradley Cardinale, who helped write the study, says,
"Loss
of biological diversity due to species extinctions is going to have major impacts on our
planet, and we better prepare ourselves to deal with them. These extinctions may well rank as
one of the top five drivers of global change." The study, which suggests that more moves must be made
to strengthen biodiversity at all levels, has just been published online in the Nature journal. Research conducted over
the last 20 years has showed that production increases in ecosystems with the widest biodiversity. This raised worries that
today's high extinction rates from harvesting increases, habitat reduction and other
environmental issues, could affect vital issues such as food production, pure water and a
stable climate. But until this study, it had been difficult to separate the effects due to the loss of biodiversity against problems
caused by human activity. Lead author of the research, David Hooper, a Western Washington University biologist, says it had
been believed that the effects of biodiversity were minor, but the findings of the new study
suggests that future species loss has as big an effect on reducing plant production as global
warming and pollution. The international team took data from 192 published studies and
experimental to compare how different worldwide environmental factors affected the growth
of plants and how fungi and bacteria attacked dead plants. They found that in places were species loss was
low, affecting up to 20% of local plant species, there was a negligible impact on plant growth in the ecosystem and in species
diversity. In areas with 21-40% extinction, plant growth was expected to fall by between 5-10%, which is equivalent to the likely
In the highest levels of
species loss, from 41-60%, the impact would be similar to major factors of environmental
change, including pollution of the ozone, acid decay of forests and pollution of nutrients
impact of global warming and rising ultraviolet radiation caused by major ozone reduction.
Coop k2 BioD
The U.S. and Cuba share biodiversity and must work together to save species
close to extinction
Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-withoutborders)KG
The ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the United States
provide the opportunity and the need for the two nations to take an enhanced collaborative,
bilateral approach to addressing shared issues. Cuba lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S.
state of Florida, and the two countries’ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the
Straits of Florida. Cuba and the United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from
varied populations of organisms to diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species
migrate, exotic species invade, disease-causing species disperse, and rare species go extinct in
the face of growing habitat modification. The living components of this shared environment are
dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by natural or man-made environmental
disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries nor do such potential disasters as oil
spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical storms. Such events provide the sine qua non for
greater bilateral cooperation. Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two
nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United
States, such as black-and-white warblers. Many insects also migrate between the United States
and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly. Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim
through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and
U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida manatee, also swim between U.S. and
Cuban waters. Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant
species that are categorized as Globally Threatened by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Because only a small fraction of the
world’s plants and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of
threatened species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger.
Even with what is known already, there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to
cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint
stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the American crocodile, and the West Indian
whistling duck.
US-Cuba cooperation key to protect biodiversity
Hamburg 09 (Steve, Chief Scientist & Environmental Defense Fund, May 28, “A New Era for
U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation”,
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/04/28-cuba-environment, LE)
Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to
Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles,
and biodiversity shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration
among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the
United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.
US-Cuban cooperation needed to help with biodiversity
Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)
Both Cuban and U.S. environmental scientists are aware of the shared urgent and emerging
environmental challenges outlined in the previous sections. However, many scientists on both
sides of the Florida Straits remain frustrated that more cannot be done to identify, study, and
solve these challenges in a collaborative fashion. On the other hand, there is increasingly a
palpable sense among environmental scientists in both Cuba and the United States that the
opportunities for bilateral collaboration are poised to expand. This was underscored by an April 2009 panel
discussion on U.S.-Cuba relations concerning marine and coastal resources conservation hosted by the Brookings Institution and the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Among many notable elements of that event was the participation of U.S. government
representatives (NOAA and the Department of State), which was a real breakthrough in expanding this discussion in the United
States beyond the NGO community.
The plan is key to improving biodiversity
Boom 08.14.2012 (Brian is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, “Biodiversity
without Borders” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)
Nature knows no boundaries, and given the number and scale of environmental problems
shared by Cuba and the United States, combined with the multitude of impediments to
finding joint solutions to these problems, the best way to enhance environmental
cooperation between the two countries would be through the establishment of a bilateral
agreement on this theme. The ecological stakes are too high for Cuba and the United States
to rely on anything short of a government-to-government accord to formalize, catalyze, and
facilitate cooperation on environmental problems of mutual concern.
Various models for such an
agreement exist: the United States has joint statements on environmental cooperation with Spain and Italy, an agreement on air
quality with Canada, and a memorandum of understanding on environmental protection with India, among others. Such a bilateral
agreement could logically take advantage of the collective experiences of the U.S.-based environmental NGO community in
conducting collaborative initiatives with Cuban counterparts over many years and, in some cases, decades. The
focus of such
a bilateral agreement should be on helping to facilitate the activities by NGOs that are
currently underway and encouraging new initiatives by NGOs in consultation with and the
approval of Cuban authorities. The elements of such an agreement should take into account the difficulties mentioned
above and the following considerations:
Coop k2 ocean bioD
US-Cuban waters provide critical habitats for a variety of species, and active
cooperation is key to preserve ocean biodiversity
Hamburg 09 (Steve, Chief Scientist & Environmental Defense Fund, May 28, “A New Era for
U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation”,
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/04/28-cuba-environment, LE)
Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its
coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning
grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life.
Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies of
coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries. Active scientific and
management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to Cuba’s biodiversity
including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity
shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration among scientists,
conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the United States and
Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations. On April 28, the Brookings
Institution and the Environmental Defense Fund hosted a discussion on U.S.-Cuba relations on
marine and coastal resources conservation. Steve Hamburg, chief scientist for the
Environmental Defense Fund, offered introductory remarks. Brookings Visiting Fellow Vicki
Huddleston, former head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, gave the keynote address.
Scott Edwards of the Environmental Defense Fund moderated a discussion featuring a panel of
experts. After the program, the panelists took audience questions.
Bilateral cooperation would help solve for growing threats to ocean biodiversity
Luxner 09-- Larry Luxner is news editor of The Washington Diplomat and editor of CubaNews. His specialty is Latin America
and the Middle East, and he's written more than 2,000 articles for publications ranging from National Journal to Saudi Aramco
World. (“Experts urge joint US-Cuba marine conservation effort”—5/2009 http://www.luxner.com/cgibin/view_article.cgi?articleID=1751)
Saltwater fish, migratory birds,
turtles and marine mammals couldn’t care less about the political
differences that separate the United States and Cuba. But all could benefit from an
improvement in bilateral ties and scientific cooperation, say experts meeting Apr. 28 at the Brookings
Institution in Washington. Some 80 people attended the event, titled “A New Era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal
Resources Conservation.” At the seminar, 10 experts outlined a new path for the United States and Cuba to protect diverse marine
resources in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. “ Cuba
is slowly coming into the 21st
century, and as it does, it’ll have to deal with tourism, nickel mining, crumbling buildings and
pollution in Havana Bay. All of these things must be addressed before it’s too late,” said Vicki
Huddleston, a Brookings foreign policy fellow who headed the U.S. Interests Section in Havana from 1999 to 2002. “There is
nothing else the U.S. can do that really makes sense, other than to have a long-range, strategic
vision of a policy of critical and constructive engagement,” she said, pointing out that if Cuba were removed from
the State Department terrorist list, various types of computers and high-tech equipment useful in environmental and coastal
protection could be exported to Cuba. The meeting, organized by the Environmental Defense Fund, came only two weeks after
President Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and announced plans to revisit U.S. policy on Cuba. EDF has asked
that environmental protection be among the top priorities in future Cuban policy for the administration. “The
U.S. and Cuba
share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of managing them ,” said
EDF senior attorney Dan Whittle. “More information ex-change among academics, scientists and
conservation groups will help both countries do a better job of managing coastal and marine
re-sources. The sooner we work together, the sooner we’ll see benefits for the people,
environment and economy in both countries.” Whittle added that expanded scientific and management
cooperation can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations,
habitats for migratory birds and biodiversity . “For the last nine years, I’ve been asked what Cuba is doing to
protect the environment. In my opinion, they’re making great progress,” he said. “Like any country, the challenge to protect the
environment during times of economic crisis is tremendous.” In 1994, Cuba’s National Assembly established its first-ever cabinetlevel ministry for the environment. More recently, it has begun looking into alternative energy sources. “Cuba is experiencing an
energy revolution. They’re dependent on Venezuela, but very much in the thick of an effort to become more energy-independent.
Part of that equation is more wind, more solar, more biomass.” Whittle said that over the last 14 months, EDF staffers have joined
Cuban scientists at the University of Matanzas to exploit ocean energy. “Our team has been working on how to do it right,” he said.
“We’re also evaluating the impact of oil and gas exploration, sharing our research with Cuban colleagues. This cooperative research
is one example of how people in both countries benefit. We would like to facilitate more and more of this kind of joint research. It’s
important to de-link our political position towards Cuba from our environmental policies.” David Hermann, chief of the State Department’s Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, stressed the “extreme vulnerability” of the Caribbean to climate change and other
environmental challenges. “We are committed to the region and its security,” he said, adding that “EPA is trying to start a Latin
American Federation of Coasts and Estuaries through our national estuary in San Juan, Puerto Rico. And if things work out the way
we’re hoping they will, it’s something that potentially Cuba could participate in.” Under
current U.S. law, travel for
American scientists to Cuba is extremely limited, and the State Department rarely grants
Cuban scientists visas to conduct research or attend professional meeting in the United States.
“ An important first step toward managing our shared marine resources would be to greatly
increase the flow of information and expertise between the two countries ,” said Huddleston. Added
Dr. Douglas Rader, chief oceans scientist at EDF: “I have only a single message today: that we cannot get marine conservation right,
especially in the southeastern U.S., without factoring in Cuba. “Many Americans are aware of the dramatic beauty of this island and
its unbelievable biodiversity — whether you like birds, manatees, lizards or even snails — but fewer Americans are aware of the
dramatic linkages between our place and that place.” Even without a lifting of the embargo, the Obama administration has the
authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental projects. “There
is essentially no
limit to the conservation activities in Cuba that President Obama can authorize, whether they
take the form of government-to-government initiatives or the authorization of American NGO
projects in that country,” said Bob Muse, a Wash-ington attorney specializing in Cuba issues. “It is hard to think of
a more constructive use of the president’s foreign-affairs prerogative than the preservation of
the marine environment the United States shares with Cuba.” A leading national nonprofit organization, EDF
represents more than 500,000 members. Since 1967, EDF has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector
partnerships to solve key environmental problems.
Coop k2 Oil Spills
U.S. Cuban scientific diplomacy’s key- oil spills
Pinon and Muse 2010 (Jorge and Robert, Cuban Research institute at Florida international
University and former president of Amoco oil Latin America and attorney on US Cuba legal
issues, “Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why U.S.-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical”,
May,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/5/18%20oil%20spill%20cuba%
20pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf, LE)
As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to
the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to
the actual. The sobering fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American
coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and
proactive planning by Washington and Havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also
important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising
from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban
waters and shorelines. Its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future
oil disasters—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the
result of companies operating in U.s. waters.
Coop k2 Coral Reefs
US-Cuba cooperation key to protect coral reefs
SFTS January 16, 2013 (Sailors for the Sea educates and engages the boating community in the
worldwide protection of the oceans. “PROTECTING CUBA'S ABUNDANT CORAL REEFS”
http://sailorsforthesea.org/About-Sailors-for-the-Sea/Press-Releases/Protecting-CubasAbundant-Coral-Reefs.aspx)
As noted in the essay, "Although many of the world's best-known reefs face destruction in the
face of global warming and other threats, large portions of the Gardens of the Queen remain
remarkably healthy. Relative isolation from human influence helps make Cuba's coral reefs
unique. Protecting these ecosystems - and species that rely on them - requires careful
collaboration. Well-designed MPAs, combined with innovative fisheries management, are the
foundation for both sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries and a thriving ecotourism sector." With only the narrow Florida Straits separating Cuba and the United States,
both countries understand the importance of collaborating on marine conservation and
fisheries management. Cubans realize that the long-term value of maintaining healthy coral
reefs is higher than the short-term profits that may come from tourism development, unless
tourism and conservation are well balanced. The Cuban National Center for Protected Areas
has set an ambitious target of designating 25 percent of their coastal waters in MPAs. Already
10-15 percent are officially approved as MPAs. Setting aside critical habitat for the many species
that live among the coastal waters and coral reefs is the first step. MPAs are an important
conservation tool but they are most effective when combined with other fishery management
tools - community-based fishery cooperatives or territorial user rights for fishing (TURFs).
Together they incentivize fishermen to rebuild and sustain fish stocks. The combination of
protected areas and sound fishery management that motivates fishermen to help protect the
parks and fish populations is critical. Most fishermen and local residents around the Gardens of
the Queens support tighter restrictions on fishing and understand that the greater investment in
science within the park has resulted in improved fisheries management in recent years.
US and Cuban marine cooperation is key to saving coral reefs
Lempinen 12 AAA (American Association of the Advancement of Science),
Edward, Oceans, Wealth, Health – U.S. Researchers Explore Potential
Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues,
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml ML
Coral reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from human activity—
over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says
marine scientist Nancy Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and
they’re in better health.¶ Knowlton is the Sant Chair for Marine Science at Smithsonian
Institution and senior scientist emeritus at Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. She’s
worked in fields of marine biodiversity and ecology; coral reefs are her specialty. Save for a
cruise that stopped in Guantanamo, she’d never been to Cuba, but on her visit in December,
she was deeply impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the
marine science already underway there.¶ “There are amazing habitats, much less impacted by
people than most places in Caribbean, in terms of over-fishing and that sort of thing,” she
said. “And there’s a large community of marine biologists there, many with shared interest in
biodiversity and conservation.”¶ For Knowlton, the Cuban reefs are like “a window in time,”
allowing researchers a view of what healthy reefs looked like in an era past. “They give you a
baseline as to what a healthy fish community should look like,” she explained. And that gives
greater insight into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced.¶ “So there are a
lot of things to learn from Cuban marine scientists,” she said. “And there are a lot of reasons
for Cubans to come here, or for Cubans to come and work at the Smithsonian. There’s a huge
potential for interchange because there are so many shared interests.”
Oil Response k2 Econ
A Cuban oil spill causes economic decline, undermines the oil industry, and
destroys the environment – conventional safeguards aren’t in place
Bert and Clayton 12
[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton,
Fellow for Energy and National Security, Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012, “Addressing
the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515]
WD
The imminent drilling of Cuba's first offshore oil well raises the prospect of a large-scale oil
spill in Cuban waters washing onto U.S. shores. Washington should anticipate this possibility
by implementing policies that would help both countries' governments stem and clean up an
oil spill effectively. These policies should ensure that both the U.S. government and the
domestic oil industry are operationally and financially ready to deal with any spill that
threatens U.S. waters. These policies should be as minimally disruptive as possible to the
country's broader Cuba strategy. The Problem A Chinese-built semisubmersible oil rig leased by
Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters in January 2012 to drill Cuba's first
exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas
reserves are substantial—somewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and
upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas. Although the United States typically welcomes
greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries that are not members of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a surge in Cuban oil production would complicate the
United States' decades-old effort to economically isolate the Castro regime. Deepwater drilling
off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy
miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that
triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features,
situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A
spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.
Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to
address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how
to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where
the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in.
Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling
move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the
Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fastmoving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be
surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four
days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render
standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has been
forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect
the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to
lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound
drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little
legal recourse. The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo
complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with
few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide
equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory. Shortfalls in U.S. federal
regulations governing commercial liability for oil spills pose a further problem. The Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA 90) does not protect U.S. citizens and property against damages stemming
from a blown-out wellhead outside of U.S. territory. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, BP was
liable despite being a foreign company because it was operating within the United States.
Were any of the wells that Repsol drills to go haywire, the cost of funding a response would
fall to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is woefully undercapitalized. OPA 90
limits the OSLTF from paying out more than $50 million in a fiscal year on oil removal costs,
subject to a few exceptions, and requires congressional appropriation to pay out more than
$150 million. The Way Forward As a first step, the United States should discuss contingency
planning for a Cuban oil spill at the regular multiparty talks it holds with Mexico, the Bahamas,
Cuba, and others per the Cartagena Convention. The Caribbean Island Oil Pollution Response
and Cooperation Plan provides an operational framework under which the United States and
Cuba can jointly develop systems for identifying and reporting an oil spill, implement a means of
restricting the spread of oil, and identify resources to respond to a spill. Washington should also
instruct the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct basic spill response coordination with its counterparts
in Cuba. The United States already has operational agreements in place with Mexico, Canada,
and several countries in the Caribbean that call for routine exercises, emergency response
coordination, and communication protocols. It should strike an agreement with Cuba that is
substantively similar but narrower in scope, limited to basic spill-oriented advance coordination
and communication. Before that step can be taken, U.S. lawmakers may need to amend the
Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 to allow for limited, spill-related coordination and
communication with the Cuban government. Next, President Barack Obama should issue an
export-only industry-wide general license for oil spill response in Cuban waters, effective
immediately. Issuing that license does not require congressional authorization. The license
should allow offshore oil companies to do vital spill response work in Cuban territory, such as
capping a well or drilling a relief well. Oil service companies, such as Halliburton, should be
included in the authorization. Finally, Congress should alter existing oil spill compensation
policy. Lawmakers should amend OPA 90 to ensure there is a responsible party for oil spills from
a foreign offshore unit that pollutes or threatens to pollute U.S. waters, like there is for vessels.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) have sponsored such
legislation. Lawmakers should eliminate the requirement for the Coast Guard to obtain
congressional approval on expenditures above $150 million for spills of national significance (as
defined by the National Response Plan). And President Obama should appoint a commission to
determine the appropriate limit of liability cap under OPA 90, balancing the need to compensate
victims with the desire to retain strict liability for polluters. There are two other, less essential
measures U.S. lawmakers may consider that would enable the country to respond more adeptly
to a spill. Installing an early-response system based on acoustic, geophysical, or other
technologies in the Straits of Florida would immediately alert the U.S. Coast Guard about a well
blowout or other unusual activity. The U.S. Department of Energy should find out from Repsol
about the characteristics of Cuban crude oil, which would help U.S. authorities predict how the
oil would spread in the case of a well blowout. Defending U.S. Interests An oil well blowout in
Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S.
law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The
Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed
booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies
would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and
other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with
Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow
response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and
environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to rewrite current law and policy
toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups
opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing
U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban territory.
However, taking sensible steps to prepare for a potential accident at an oil well in Cuban waters
would not break new ground or materially alter broader U.S. policy toward Cuba. For years,
Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern. The United States routinely
coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of Florida as well as to
combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on Caribbean
storms. The recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges
that a Cuban oil spill poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or
military. What they would do is protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger
emanating from Cuba. Cuba will drill for oil in its territorial waters with or without the
blessing of the United States. Defending against a potential oil spill requires a modicum of
advance coordination and preparation with the Cuban government, which need not go
beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these precautions, the United States risks a
second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.
A coordinated response to an oil spill will be key to mitigate its economic
impact – Deepwater Horizon proves
Di Natale 10
[Marisa Di Natale, director at Moody's Analytics and former economist at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, July 21, 2010, “The Economic Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill,”
http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=191641&src] WD
Even under a pessimistic scenario, economic damage from the Gulf of Mexico oil leak will be
confined to adjacent regions. As with most natural disasters, the oil leak's effect on the
broader U.S. economy will be negligible. The Gulf region’s oil and gas production industry is
threatened by the moratorium on new drilling. Thousands of cleanup jobs will help offset
losses in tourism, fishing, and oil and gas production. Though the full environmental and
economic consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil leak will not be known for some time, a
study by Moody’s Analytics estimates that nearly $1.2 billion in output and 17,000 jobs will be
lost in the Gulf Coast states by the end of this year. Even so, the spill's national economic
impact is likely to be negligible. The accident's environmental costs will certainly be large, but
the effect on national GDP, income and employment will be minimal. The output loss across
the five Gulf Coast states amounts to less than 0.1% of national GDP. Fishing and tourism The
greatest direct impact thus far is being felt by the Gulf Coast’s sizable fishing and aquaculture
industry, especially in Louisiana. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
closed about 80,000 square miles of the Gulf to fishing, mostly along the Louisiana coastline,
though the closure extends as far east as Panama City FL. At least one Louisiana beach has been
closed to swimmers and fishermen, and several Alabama and Florida Panhandle beaches are
advising swimmers of the presence of tar balls and oil sheens, though the beaches remain open.
In response to the disaster, President Obama signed an executive order that places a six-month
moratorium on new deepwater oil drilling. This order affects about 33 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico,
most of them off the coast of Houma LA. The Gulf economy The economic impact of the oil spill
will be concentrated in Gulf Coast communities. Of the five states affected—Texas, Louisiana,
Alabama, Mississippi and Florida—the two hardest hit are Louisiana, with its heavy dependence
on fishing, aquaculture and oil extraction, and Florida, with its tourist industry. The metro areas
and counties that line the shores of the Gulf are already bearing the brunt. Yet these areas
account for only 3% of national GDP and employment, so broad macroeconomic effects are
unlikely, at least in the near term. The outlook for beach tourism along the Gulf Coast has
fluctuated amid uncertainty about the volume and reach of the spill. While advance bookings
initially fell, there is some evidence that tourists are making last-minute decisions to vacation in
areas perceived as clear of oil. This could mitigate some of the damage to Florida’s and
Alabama’s tourism industries. The thousands of workers assisting with the cleanup, along with
the media deluge along the Gulf Coast, will also offset some of the losses incurred by hotel
operators, restaurateurs and retailers. Louisiana's pain The impact on Louisiana’s fishing and
aquaculture industries is difficult to gauge, yet the industry accounts for less than 1% of that
state’s total output. Most federal Gulf waters closed to fishing are off the coast of southern
Louisiana in the Houma and New Orleans metropolitan areas, where most of the state's shrimp
and oyster harvesting is concentrated. Neither industry had yet fully recovered from the
devastation wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita several years ago. Even before the leak,
catches were still well below their 2004 levels. To put the potential impact into perspective, the
hurricanes of 2005 cut the Gulf shrimp catch by a third and the oyster catch by a quarter,
measured by weight. While the hurricanes caused some pollution that affected fishing, oyster
beds and coastal nurseries, the potential pollution from the oil leak is far greater. With oil
reaching the coastal breeding areas for marine life, the industry could face years of disruption.
Drilling moratorium BP recently estimated that more than 6,000 locally owned and operated
boats were deployed to help with oil cleanup and containment. The company's payments to
local commercial and charter fishermen will mitigate lost income from the closure of fishing and
shrimping waters, at least temporarily. Louisiana’s economy could feel a larger impact from the
administration's six-month moratorium on new offshore drilling. Oil and gas infrastructure
accounts for a large share of the state’s GDP—up to 20% in some Gulf Coast metro areas.
Though the number of jobs directly associated with the oil and gas industry is not enormous,
many thousands depend indirectly on this industry. Manufacturing, transportation, and
professional/technical service jobs associated with oil drilling are at risk if the moratorium stays
in effect through early November, as ordered. Adjusting the forecast The Moody’s Analytics
forecasts for the Gulf Coast economies have been adjusted to incorporate assumptions about
the impact of the oil leak. Adjustments at the state level were small, mainly because the oil leak
will affect only a handful of metro areas and counties in each state. The spill's biggest impacts
are likely to be recorded in the third and fourth quarters of 2010. Florida and Mississippi are
expected to suffer net declines in employment during the third quarter. No changes have been
made to the Alabama forecast, since damage there seems to be limited to one county (Baldwin),
which is not in a metro area and accounts for a tiny share of the state’s overall jobs and output.
Though forecast changes at the state level were relatively minor, some metro areas will see a
significant impact. On the Florida Panhandle, the Crestview, Pensacola and Panama City metro
areas, along with Tampa, were adjusted to reflect declining consumer confidence and
cancellations by vacationers. Losses would be much greater if not for increased bookings from
cleanup and containment workers and journalists. News reports indicate BP has hired several
hundred cleanup workers along the Panhandle, and these additions are factored into the
forecast.
Terminal !’s
Marine BioD
Ocean biodiversity loss causes extinction
Craig 03
[Robin Kundis, Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Professor at Florida State University College of
Law and leading environmental law scholar, Winter 2003, “Taking Steps Toward Marine
Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” Lexis]
WD
The world’s oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider
valuable. “Occupying more than seventy percent of the Earth’s surface and ninety-five percent
of the biosphere,” oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and
pharmaceuticals; life support processes , including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and
weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people
worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity’s wellbeing: “The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the
locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that
create and maintain our atmosphere and climate.” Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have
been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many
people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world’s
seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. (It continues...)
More generally , “ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all
the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements”. In a
very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the
planet’s ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the
functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem’s
ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity,
“indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. (It continues...) We may not know
much about the sea, but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we
will take most of the biosphere with us . The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex
and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving
out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless,
wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 Mo re importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
LOSS OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY CAUSES EXTINCTION
Agardy 1
[Tundi, internationally renowned expert on marine conservation, specializing in marine protected areas and coastal
planning and previous senior director for the Global Marine Program at Conservation International a global
environmental organization; Copyright 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions Inc.,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_01.html]
Many marine ecologists would agree we are indeed facing an extinction crisis. This may surprise
those who view the seas as vast and immutable -- the one great constant in an ever-changing world. But while there are
remote ocean areas that remain relatively pristine, most
coastal areas have undergone a radical
human-induced transformation in the last 100 years. The marine extinction crisis is not as widely
grasped as the crises in tropical forests and other terrestrial biomes. Though the number of marine extinctions is small, this is
due to our state of knowledge. First, the bulk of marine species are undiscovered -- we are losing species before we even know
of them. Second, the species label itself does not work well for marine organisms -- here unique populations are at risk, not
entire species (the U.S. placing certain runs of salmon on the endangered species list exemplifies this). As with species
extinction, the
devastation of genetically unique populations is an irreversible
biodiversity loss. Marine biodiversity is reduced by both over-exploitation of living
resources and the much more insidious and dangerous loss of habitat. Nearly three-
quarters of the world's commercially fished stocks are overharvested and at risk. At the same time, habitat loss is a chronic
and much more acute problem, with grave consequences for marine life and the entire biosphere. The most ecologically
essential habitats -- estuaries, wetlands, shallow water seagrasses, and coral reefs -- are most threatened. Thirty percent of the
world's mangrove forests and nearly half the world's coral reefs have been lost due to direct habitat destruction. Many of the
remaining critical marine habitats are indirectly degraded by pollution, freshwater diversion, and climate change. As
human population pressures grow, essential ecological services and species are
affected, leading to conditions in which the planet's vital organs can serve neither
nature nor us.
BioD
BioD loss leads to extinction
Coyne and Hoekstra ‘7 - jerry coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the university of
chicago. Hopi e. Hoekstra is john l. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at harvard
university and curator of mammals at harvard's museum of comparative zoology. ,“diversity lost as we head towards a lonely
planet“, weekend australian, november 10, lexis
Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming
increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As
extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and
so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most
celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures,
melting icecaps and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact
between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful
diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients . We
have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide
plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil
formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet,
through intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity
into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in
North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbours and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by
single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks
to these developments, soils will erode
and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural
yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover,
ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells
disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted
and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many
humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and
produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species
extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous
amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided
by ecosystems -- those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace -- has been estimated to be
as much as $US50thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries
combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life
as we know it would be impossible
if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its
present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote
swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare
South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants,
not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of
worm: its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent),
decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical
goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective
against ovarian and breast cancer) and aspirin. More
than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy
shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful
alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000
plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical
properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates,
it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth
saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained,
especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our
hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and
intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what
could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all
got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic
kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the
soul. But whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth
extinction.
We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures
are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of
sweltering heat, failing crops and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility
that we are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby
existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences
of what we have done to nature; not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.
Biodiversity loss comparatively outweighs nuclear war, economic collapse and
tyranny.
Chen 2000 [Jim, Professor of Law at the U of Minnesota, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade Winter 2000, pg. 211]
The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is literally . . . incalculable.
What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noahs Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. Others regard the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the
biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the Wests deplorable environmental record. To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian myth and legend, we should let
The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the
gravest problem facing humanity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon
that our descendents [will] most regret, the loss of genetic and species diversity by the
destruction of natural habitats is worse than even energy depletion, economic collapse,
limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth will a diversity of
Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural history.
species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million.
Biodiversity loss itself outweighs human extinction. We have a moral
imperative to protect the other species on Earth.
Elliott`97
[Herschel, University of Florida Emeritus Philosophy, 1997 “A General Statement of the Tragedy of the Commons,” February 26,
http://www.dieoff.org/page121.htm]
all systems of ethical beliefs are hypotheses about how human beings can live on Earth. As
such, they make factual claims. And like all factual claims, their truth or falsity depends on empirical evidence . For
Third,
this reason, the sequence of biological events which the general statement of the tragedy of the commons describes is of decisive importance for ethical theory. It shows (1) that moral behavior must be
grounded in a knowledge of biology and ecology, (2) that moral obligations must be empirically tested to attain necessary biological goals, (3) that any system of moral practices is self-inconsistent when the
empirical criteria give a necessary (though not a
sufficient) condition for acceptable moral behavior. Regardless of the human proclivity to
rationalize, any system of ethical beliefs is mistaken if its practice would cause the
breakdown of the ecosystem which sustains the people who live by it. Indeed, biological
necessity has a veto over moral behavior. Facts can refute moral beliefs Fourth, ecosystems are in dynamic equilibrium.
behavior, which it either allows or makes morally obligatory, actually subverts the goal it seeks. Thus
In addition, technology and human institutions are constantly evolving in novel and unpredictable ways. Furthermore, living things must compete with each other for space and resources; yet each organism also
the welfare of all organisms -- including human
beings -- is causally dependent on the health and stability of the ecosystems which sustain
them. As a consequence, the stability and well-being of the Earth's biosystem has moral
priority over the welfare of any of its parts -- including the needs and interests of human
societies and individuals.
depends symbiotically on the well-being of the whole for its own survival and well-being. Indeed
Species decline causes extinction – each new decline risks total collapse
Diner 94
[Judge Advocate’s General’s Corps of US Army, David N., Military Law Review, Winter, 143
Mil. L. Rev. 161] WD
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have
assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and
animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a singleminded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the
maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety
percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species
replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's
survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of
species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would
become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human
life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound
policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2.
Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the
environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to
man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70
oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian
Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the
world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be
impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only
a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday
desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter,
harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult
for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless,
they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful
species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other
species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each
new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the
current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has
decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within
species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species,
filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . .
[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist
collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks
down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified
many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The
spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States
are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could
cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk
of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings,
[hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Biodiversity loss increases the risk of total ecosystem collapse and extinction
Major David N. Diner , JAG – US Army, MILITARY LAW REVIEW, Winter 1994,
http://www.stormingmedia.us/14/1456/A145654.html
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems.
so does the risk of ecosystem failure.
As biologic simplicity increases,
The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s
in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each
new
its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total
ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
animal or plant extinction, with all
Warming
Warming is an existential threat
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and
Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate
Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending
on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual'
projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping
emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach
1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without
early and severe
reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twentyfirst century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world
- not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and
stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of
widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been
condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change
beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that
there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic
conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social,
cultural and political changes.
Climate change outweighs conflict
Lee 9 – Professor of environment, conflict, and trade @ American
James, PhD, runs American University's Inventory of Conflict and Environment project, Climate
Change and Armed Conflict
The path from climate change to conflict will not be a direct one. For that matter, most roads to conflict are indirect and lie in
structural and behavioral patterns that make the path easier to travel. There are three structural pathways from
climate change to armed conflict: sustained trends, intervening variables, and the need for
conflict triggers. First, conflict only emerges after a sustained period of divergent climate patterns. People can survive
aberrant, short-term climate change through exploitation of saved resources, but this strategy has temporal limits. The issue is
not one of surviving a particularly fierce rain or a harsh winter, but the accumulation of many rain events and many harsh
winters. Human society is capable of enduring events and seasons, but as these events and
seasons accumulate over many years or even decades, accumulated wealth begins to draw
down and eventually dissipates. Without renewal of society's wealth, human health and well-being decline, and
over time the society itself may collapse. Societies with few savings will be more vulnerable to adverse impacts from climate
change. Societies that already heavily exploit their environment will be closer to possible conflict than those that do not.
Brian Fagan offers a context for climate-induced conflict in places where people already live on the edge of survival: In a
telling analysis on nineteenth century droughts, the historian Mike Davis has estimated, conservatively,
that at least 20 to 30 million people, and probably many more, most of them tropical
farmers, perished from the consequences of harsh droughts caused by EI Ninos and
monsoon failures during the nineteenth century, more people than in virtually all the
wars of the century. (Fagan 2008: 235)
Coral reefs
Coral reefs sustain biodiversity
Bird 96 Oceanic Research Group, Jonathan, Coral Reefs: Rainforests of the Sea
(Script), http://www.oceanicresearch.org/education/films/crrainspt.html - ML
The larger marine creatures -- like whales, dolphins, and sharks -- get most of the attention. But
some of the tiniest animals in the sea may be the most remarkable -- and most essential for
supporting marine life.
Within the world's oceans, the greatest variety of life is found on amazing living structures
called coral reefs. These fragile reefs play a critical role in sustaining a thriving ocean habitat,
especially in tropical oceans. They also provide many benefits to humans as well. Yet, coral
reefs are built by tiny animals, each smaller than a pencil eraser.
Econ
Economic decline causes war – diversionary theory and empirical evidence
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] WD
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 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that
interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use 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 theory" suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996),
DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing
that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller
(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary
tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic
support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the 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.
Econ decline causes global catastrophe and nuclear war
Harris and Burrows 9 – PhD in History and Statistical analyst
Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a 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 interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each
with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,
history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to 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 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
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
experience, such as over
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.
AT: Gradualism
2AC
Status quo won’t solve – need much more action for there to be any
breakthrough
AP 6/21 – Associated Press. (AP, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles”, 6/21/13,
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/21/cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-many-03/, HW)
They've hardly become allies, but Cuba
and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward
rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering
if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Skeptics caution that the Cold
War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. In the
past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues.
In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the
family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has
apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it
easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their
dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on
Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry
officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs,
recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials — a visit that came right before the announcements
of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted
visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These
recent steps indicate a desire
on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult
it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at
American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter
administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are
equally high." Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an
outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns
while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating
with Cuba. Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and
may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits
and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy.
Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought
under Castro's limited free-market reforms. Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's
changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by
dissidents. Likewise, a U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted
criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba. To
be sure, there
is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The State
Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into
question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration
continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother
Fidel. For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo. And
then there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a
15-year jail sentence for bringing communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has
scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade
Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United States, something Washington has said it won't consider. Ted
Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban
dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the
Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting CubanAmerican politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its
history. "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum
leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and
more audacious." Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by those long opposed to engagement. Cuban-
American congressman Mario Diaz Balart, a Florida Republican, called the recent overtures "disturbing." "Rather than attempting to
legitimize the Cuban people's oppressors, the administration should demand that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S.
justice, release all political prisoners and American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against
the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights," he said. Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana RosLehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship." Despite
that rhetoric, many experts think
Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose engagement because younger
Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled immediately after
the 1959 revolution. Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami
restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding
migration talks. Several said they hoped for much more movement. Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born
in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties.
"There was a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he said. Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45
years ago, said more dialogue would be good. "The
more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to
democracy," he said. Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected
Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. That was a
considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic
relations with Cuba. "In
general, there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing
diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida
International University. "Short of perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing
support for some sort of understanding with the Cuban government.”
No political will to change Cuban policy—broken promises
Gustin ’13 (Felicia Gustin, worked as a journalist for 10 years in Cuba, works at SpeakOut, a national
organization working primarily with colleges, universities, and high schools and dedicated to the
advancement of education, racial and social justice, leadership development and activism, long-time
activist in international solidarity, peace, racial justice and labor movements, “Will Washington End its
Cold War Against Cuba?”, War Times, 2-28-2013, http://www.war-times.org/endembargo)
But this
isn’t the first time changes in Cuban policy have lined up with Washington’s criteria for
normalized relations. In fact, as each new President moved into the Oval Office, each has
imposed his own list of prerequisites that have included any of the following: - End alignment with the Soviet
Union and communist bloc End support for liberation movements fighting colonialsim (aka “exporting revolution”) - Withdraw
Cuban troops from Africa (Cuba sent troops in 1975 to help Angola repel the invasion by South African apartheid forces) - Stop statesponsored terrorism - End promotion of leftist revolutions in Central America, especially El Salvador and Nicaragua - Stop violations
of human rights - Establish U.S. approved “democracy” and a market economy - Hold
U.S.-sanctioned elections with
Fidel Castro stepping down as Cuba’s President - Free political prisoners. And so on. Some of these
have long been “complied” with. Some are so ridicuous they are laughable such as ‘state sponsor of terrorism.’ Believe it or not,
Cuba is still on Washington’s list of terrorist nations even though several several senior administration officials and high-level U.S.
diplomats have acknowledged Cuba should not have this designation. Some items on the list are quite contradictory such as the call
regarding human rights violations. Since when has Washington let human rights violations get in the way of full diplomatic relations
During his first term, Obama did loosen travel for Cubans in the U.S. to visit
family members on the island as well as send remittances. But ironically, the continued
embargo actually benefits Cuban-Americans. Writing in the Huffington Post, long-time Cuba observers filmmaker
with another country?
Saul Landau and Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico, Nelson P. Valdes note that “Miami-based Cuban-Americans
and their Cuba-based families have used U.S.-Cuba policy, the embargo representing the power of the nation for their own selfinterest, and in order to attain a comparative advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the American population.” They claim that CubanAmerican entrepreneurs have “manufactured a lucrative business with the island, regulated by the very government they pretend to
hate,” and that rightwing congressional representatives try to pass laws to punish Cuba while ignoring the trade that has benefitted
both economies. Open trade that could come with the end of the blockade would benefit both countries. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce says the cost of the embargo to the U.S. economy is $1.2 billion per year while The Cuba Policy Foundation estimates it’s
even higher: up to $4.84 billion annually in lost sales and exports. The Cuban government estimates the economic damage caused to
the Cuban people by the embargo as of December 2011 amounted to $1.066 trillion. Bruno Eduardo Rodriquez Parilla, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Cuba, told the U.N. General Assembly, “Any sensible person could figure out the living standards and development
levels that we could have achieved if we had had those resources available,” calling the blockade one of the main causes of Cuba’s
economic problems and the major obstacle to its economic and social development. Most of the world agrees with him. With the
passage of the twenty-first consecutive resolution calling for an end to the United States’ blockade against Cuba, United Nations
delegates voted 188 in favor to 3 against (United States, Israel, Palau) with 2 abstentions (Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
President Obama has outlined the priorities for his second term and most are on the
domestic front: fixing the economy, immigration reform, improving education, gun control, addressing climate change, to
name a few. In terms of foreign policy, Obama hopes to wrap up the U.S. quagmire in
Afghanistan; deal with conflicts in Mali, Syria and other possible hotspots in the Middle East
and Africa; strengthen engagement in Asia; handle the standoff with Iran and North Korea
over nuclear capabilities; and reboot relations with Russia, among others. Normalization of
relations with Cuba doesn’t make the top ten of either list. Nor from Washington’s vantage
point, is there any compelling reason for it to especially given the knee-jerk reaction on the
part of Republicans to everything Obama proposes/wants/does. Imagine if the President did in fact move
Micronesia).
in the direction of lifting the embargo, opening trade and travel with Cuba. Republicans would go ballistic. They already charge him
with being a socialist. This would only provide more fodder for their obsession and obstructionist modus operandi. For Democrats,
surely already thinking about four years from now, a change in Cuba policy might also fuel Florida Republicans Jeb Bush’s or Mark
Rubio’s run for the presidency. Cubans in Florida are a powerful lot. And despite shifts and even voting for Obama overwhelmingly in
the last election, the old school leaders still have a grip on determining foreign policy with regards to Cuba. Unfortunately
in Washington, there doesn’t seem to be the political will to challenge this or make major
changes any time soon.
up
Extensions
Status Quo Fails
Current policies fail; barriers that the aff solves prevent scientific interaction
Lozano 6/20—Miguel is a journalist for the Havana Reporter. (“Academic Diplomacy, One More Element in the Cuba-US
Conflict”—6/20/2013 http://www.prensa-latina.cu/images/stories/Media/TheHavanaReporter.pdf)
WASHInGtOn._ Like the ping-pong diplomacy that brought China and the United States closer together, “academic diplomacy”
could initiate a dialogue between the two sides of the half centurylong Cuba-U.S. conflict, experts from both countries say. toward
that end, academics from both sides devoted four years to reaching a consensus on possible areas for beginning talks between
Washington and Havana, despite mutual distrust. this exercise was called the Cuban-U.S. Academic Workshop (known as tACE for
its initials in Spanish) and it was presented in Washington at the 31st International Congress of the Latin American Studies
Association, which was held May 29-June 1. the Regional Economic and Social Research Coordinating Association, a network of
several dozen academic centers, research institutions and nGOs, acted as facilitator in this work, with results that the workshop’s
president, Andrés Serbín, said were consistent with prior recommendations. In an interview, Serbín said that one of the most
important aspects of the proposal is that concrete points were covered by consensus, and after a long period of distant relations,
necessary bridges were built for improving those relations. In his opinion, this facilitates continued progress of much of what is
done at the hemispheric level to improve US-Cuba relations. At the same time, he acknowledged that negotiations can be
extremely complicated in the U.S. political system, although the outlook is positive for certain economic measures taken without
consulting Congress. As examples, Serbín mentioned the easing of regulations on remittances and U.S.-Cuba travel by CubanAmericans and others, as well as food sales that, even with restrictions, call the blockade into question, he said. Philip Brenner
of American University said that the spirit of tACE is to help initiate a process of eliminating distrust, which is why the goal is to
get the final proposals to Cuban and U.S. officials. In an interview with Prensa Latina, Brenner said that the most important
aspect of tACE was that it continued for four years with the participation of former U.S. officials and presidential advisors.
Brenner noted that the U.S. participants were able to meet with Cuban academics and former officials to dig at the root of the
problem and find ways to deal with distrust that has been exacerbated by a long history of U.S. aggression against the Cuban
Revolution. Regarding what kind of space exists for initiatives of this kind in the Barack Obama administration, Brenner said that
there were possibilities for taking small steps, although “unfortunately, the
president has not shown much
interest in Latin America.” If the Obama administration truly paid attention to Latin America
and understood that Cuba is a very important symbol for the region, real possibilities for
making process would exist, he said. Another tACE participant, former Cuban diplomat Carlos Alzugaray, said that
better relations were inevitable, because current U.S. policy is a failure. “We have chosen very concrete issues, but
there has been agreement on all of them, and if agreements exist between academics who have been diplomats, they can exist
between the two governments,” he said. Obama is in a position to take a step, Alzugaray added. He won the elections, does not
have to stand for re-election, and showed that he can win with non-extremist positions, even if they are not the ones that one
would wish for, Alzugaray noted. Even with those positions, an election can be won in Florida, he commented. A total of 25 joint
recommendations were published in the book Oportunidad para las relaciones Cuba-Estados Unidos (Opportunity for CubaUnited States Relations), in the fields of academic, scientific/technical and cultural cooperation; freedom to travel; international
trade and development; terrorism and security, and environment. As an example of existing distrust and hostility, two Cuban
participants, Milagros Martínez and Rafael Hernández, were absent from the presentation because U.S. authorities denied them
and a dozen other Cuban academics entry visas. the book suggests “that the United States government remove Cuba from the
list of state sponsors of terrorism, given that its inclusion on that list is an obstacle to cooperation between the two countries on
the fight against terrorism.” Other areas include exchange between high-ranking officials; mutual recognition of proposals for
improving security; talks for agreements on fighting terrorism and drugs; and a review of sentences given to individuals convicted
of crimes committed in the name of a foreign country. For
academic cooperation, recommendations include
improving processes for the granting of visas; adjustments to migration policy; promotion of
meetings among prominent individuals; and the U.S. elimination of restrictions on acquiring resources
for civilian research. Others proposals include: simplifying bureaucratic processes for travel; eliminating sanctions on
banks and commercial entities associated with the right to travel; mutually facilitation of insurance and medical services;
monitoring of operators’ practices; and eliminating spending limits and the ban on credit card use for U.S. travelers. In addition,
Washington is asked to acknowledge economic changes in Cuba and Havana is asked to continue that process. the proposal asks
Washington to modify regulations that force Havana to buy food and medicine in cash upfront; not to hinder remittances; and to
analyze Cuba’s return to international financial organizations. In the area of environment, the proposal is to eliminate the ban on
the transfer of technology for disaster risk mitigation; to foster cooperation among local governments and nongovernmental
organizations; and to hold talks on disaster management, joint plans for earthquakes, and protocols for fishing. With the
conclusion of the tACE academic exercise, now the goal is to take these 25 proposals to both governments, and with that,
academics hope to open up space for eliminating the distrust and hostility that has separated the two countries for more than
half a century. In participating in a panel discussion on Cuba and the United States at the LASA Congress, José R. Cabañas, chief of
the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., also referred to a number of issues that are obstacles to bilateral relations. He
agreed with the tACE academics who oppose justifications for keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Academics
say removing Cuba from the list could be one of the first actions to open up the road to normalizing relations.
Baby steps in the squo, but we need to make real progress
Haven 6/21 (Paul, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles.” 7/13/13.
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f150f522ad1030d68179cc16644f6483/cuba-us-try-talkingbut-face-many-obstacles. KJ)
HAVANA (AP) — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward
rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering
if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies
have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be
shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on
resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S.
federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed
U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet
happened. President
Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes,
including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats on both
sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was
broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being
CIA front-men. Today, U.S.
diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy
contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶ Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs,
recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials — a visit that came
right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years.
Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of
Cuba's president.¶ "These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward,
but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress ," said
Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former
national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny,
incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
The status quo fails – gradual steps like the plan are a pre-requisite to effective
engagement
Council of the Americas 2-20-13
[Americas Society – Council of the Americas, February 20, 2013, “Seven Steps the U.S. President
Can Take to Promote Change in Cuba by Adapting the Embargo,” http://www.ascoa.org/articles/seven-steps-us-president-can-take-promote-change-cuba-adapting-embargo]
WD
Change, however gradual, is taking place in Cuba. At the same time, the administration of President
Barack Obama has used its authority under the embargo—through exceptions, executive
actions, regulations, and licensing adjustments—to take tentative steps to loosen restrictions
on travel, remittances, and telecoms activity by U.S. companies. A careful reading of U.S. policy goals
toward Cuba and the set of regulations and laws governing the U.S. embargo on Cuba reveal a series of changes that are essential to
ensuring the U.S. administration’s goal of encouraging independent economic and political activity in Cuba. More important, they
are also legally possible and within the President’s authority under existing regulations. To that end, we
propose the following
Obama can take to encourage private organizations and individuals to directly and
indirectly serve as catalysts for meaningful economic change in Cuba. Grant exceptions for commerce—
steps that President
including sales and imports—for businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state) economic activity.
Allow for the export and sale of goods and services to businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state)
economic activity. Allow licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba to have access to U.S.-issued pre-paid cards and other financial services—
including travelers’ insurance. Expand general licensed travel to include U.S. executives and their duly appointed agents to Cuba in
financial services, travel and hospitality-related industries, such as banking, insurance, credit cards, and consumer products related
to travel. Expand general licensed travel to include: law, real estate and land titling, financial services and credit, and any area
defined as supporting independent economic activity. Allow for the sale of telecommunications hardware—including cell towers,
satellite dishes, and handsets—in Cuba. Allow for the possibility for Cuba to request technical assistance from International Financial
Institutions (IFIs) in the area of economic and institutional reform. In a separate annex (Annex I) this document lays out the legal and
statutory basis for Presidential authority to make these necessary reforms to further U.S. policy to Cuba. Change, however gradual,
is taking place in Cuba. A
series of economic reforms announced by President Raúl Castro in 2010 set
out policies that authorize and give greater space to private enterprise. The reforms are
already creating an incipient independent economic sector. At the same time, the
administration of President Barack Obama has used its authority under the embargo—through
exceptions, executive actions, regulations, and licensing adjustments—to take tentative steps to loosen restrictions on
travel, remittances, and telecoms activity by U.S. companies. Unfortunately, the changes on both sides have not
gone far enough. The two countries remain in diplomatic deadlock—creating an opportunity
for private groups to provide channels to share information and build contacts. Over the last three years, through its Cuba Working
Group, Americas Society and Council of the Americas (AS/COA) have held discussions and hosted Cuban scholars and public officials
at private events in New York, Washington D.C. and Miami. Since their founding, AS/COA have played a critical role in bringing
together the public and private sectors to engage with and foster policy reform and entrepreneurship. Today, more than ever, there
is room to create dialogue with all parties around market reforms, economic development and opening, private enterprise, and
entrepreneurship in Cuba. A
careful reading of U.S. policy goals toward Cuba and the set of
regulations and laws governing the U.S. embargo on Cuba reveal a series of changes that are
essential to ensuring the U.S. administration’s goal of encouraging independent economic and
political activity in Cuba. More important, they are also legally possible and within the President’s authority under existing
regulations. To that end, we propose the following steps that President Obama can take to encourage private organizations and
individuals to directly and indirectly serve as catalysts for meaningful economic change in Cuba. We explain the regulatory and legal
authority for all these steps in Annex I below.
The United States must make sensible steps to cooperate with Cuba
Katrina vanden Heuvel, July 2 2013, Editor and publisher of The Nation, “The U.S. should end
the Cuban embargo”
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/opinions/40316090_1_embargo-limitedprivate-enterprise-odebrecht
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 Kornbluh explained 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 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 prelude to
broader bilateral negotiations on a range of issues, Obama could act directly to remove an
open sore in U.S.-Cuban relations. 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 has offered to
facilitate these sensible steps.¶ 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 States to turn to a policy that will engage Cuba
rather than isolate ourselves.
Current Science cooperation has obstacles – status quo doesn’t solve for oil
Ordonez 12 McClatchy Newspapers, Franco, Scientists work to bridge political
gap between Cuba, U.S.,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/21/149603/scientists-work-to-bridgepolitical.html#.UeGMobvLg3I#storylink=cpy ML
U.S. officials also have engaged with the International Maritime Organization, which has sent
technical teams to Cuba to evaluate its oil drilling procedures, and Cuban and U.S. officials met
in the Bahamas in December along with officials from Mexico and Jamaica to discuss disaster plans. A similar meeting was
held in Trinidad and administration officials say more will come.¶ “In fact, we’re all comfortable all the
entities that would need licenses to respond appropriately either have them or are in the
process of getting them at this point,” said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity in order to
speak freely.¶ Reilly notes that his delegation spent several days speaking directly with top Cuban officials and was able to gather
specific details about Cuban plans that may not have been discussed at other multinational meetings.¶ “On
the oil and gas
issues, we’ve been moderately successful in getting the two governments to start talking with
each other,” said the Environmental Defense Fund’s Whittle, who helped lead the trip and had several meetings with
administration officials.¶ There are still considerable obstacles to be overcome. In addition to needing
visas to travel to the United States, Cuban scientists work with fewer resources. The Internet
also is not easily accessible.¶ In February, Fabian Pina, a scientist with Cuba’s Center for Coastal Ecosystems Research in
Cayo Coco, Cuba, was awarded a $150,000 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to study goliath grouper populations in Cuba, the
first time a Cuban researcher has received the prestigious grant, a kin, in the marine science world, to winning a MacArthur “genius
grant.Ӧ But Pina
was supposed to be in the 2011 class. It took months to get proper approvals from
U.S. officials, who were concerned the grant money would be taken or taxed by the Cuban
government.
Cooperation now but underfunded
Gonzalez 4/4/13-Rufford Foundation(Orestes, “Grant Recipents Conference, Cuba
2013”,7/13/13, http://www.rufford.org/news/grant_recipients_conference_cuba_2013)RN
The Cuban archipelago is part of one of the hot points of the world biodiversity, is outlined for the high
values of endemism in several biological groups and for presenting a great diversity of ecosystems and
landscapes in a relatively small geographic area. In spite of the fact that environmental aspects are an
important topic for the Cuban government, the economic conditions of the country, specially in the current
conjuncture they make the project financing very difficult specially those with an approach centred on the
conservation.
Obama
Lifting the embargo on Cuba is a low presidential priority
Davis ’13 (Lenka Davis, news reporter for WMNF radio, Tampa, “Public officials, scientists and
businessmen urge US to fix policy with Cuba”, 88.5 FM WMNF radio, 03/25/13,
http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/public-officials-scientists-and-businessmen-urge-us-to-fix-policywith-cuba)
For more than 50 years the U.S. Government has severely limited trade and travel with Cuba ,
but there’s a growing movement to restore the US-Cuba relationship. WMNF’s Lenka Davis reports from a seminar Saturday in Ybor
City hosted by Alliance For Responsible Cuban Policy Foundation, dedicated to restoring trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba,
and by Center for International Policy. Panelists urged the U.S. embargo on Cuba be lifted and diplomatic, economic and scientific
Cuba doesn’t have an ambassador to the United States,
but their General Counselor in the United States, Llanio Gonzalez-Lopez, sees the the blockade of Cuba as
the biggest obstacle in healthy diplomatic relationships. Gonzalez-Lopez also raised concerns about the U.S.
relations be restored between the two neighbors.
military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He said because the agreement for the base was made with the pre-revolution government,
Cuba does not recognize the pact and he called for further discussion with the U.S. government on the issue. However, Peter
Kornbluh from National Security Archives says Cuba is a low presidential priority, despite
Barack Obama’s pre-election promise to lead a dialog with Cuba. According to Kornbluh,
friendship between the US and Cuba could bring changes to Cuba faster than the failed 50
year embargo. The former chief of staff for Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, revealed that Pentagon does not
consider Cuba to be a threat even though it’s on a list of terrorist countries. He also outlined what needs to happen to fix foreign
policy with Cuba. Dan Whittle from the Environmental Defense Fund says the US should care about the fate of Cuba’s environment
as well, because Cuban and Floridian ecosystems are deeply connected.
No embargo lift in the status quo—Obama unwilling to act
White ’13 (Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States
ambassador, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba”, The New York Times, 3-7-2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=2&ref=cuba)
Yet for a half-century, our
policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between
intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United
States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with
potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity. Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez
used our
embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters.
His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The
embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it,
though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in
Congress. An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America
that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking
social change throughout the Americas. I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin
America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led
by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and
Portuguese rule in the 19th century. Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution.
Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the
same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but
Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.
Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of
Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech
and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service
career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by
the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was
fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to
the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We
armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research
institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were
rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate
a series of profound political, social and
economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with
them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization,
to any conventional conception of the national interest.” Over the subsequent quarter-century,
which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the
creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an
alternative. At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing
for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.” Mr. Chávez was masterful at
manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist
aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap
commodities and labor. Like
its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it
has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President
Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil,
urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.
No government reform to Cuba policy—denial
Ruiz 1/20 (Albor Ruiz, reporter for NY Daily News, M.A., Political Science and Philosophy, “Memo to
President Obama: Cuba has extended an olive branch, shouldn’t the U.S.?”, NY Daily News, 1-20-2013,
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/long-cuba-easing-travel-restrictions-u-s-continues-50-year-oldembargo-article-1.1242290)
It may be hard to believe but as the newsletter Cuba Central Newsblast points out, since last week Cubans have more freedom to
see the world than American citizens have to visit Cuba. Hopefully, the irony won’t escape President Obama and members of
Congress who should finally bury for good that political zombie which for 50 years has passed for a U.S. Cuba policy.
Last Jan. 14 Havana dropped travel restrictions on most of its citizens that had been standing
since the early 1960s. Now practically any Cuban with a visa and a valid passport can book a
flight. Gone are the days of the despised “tarjeta blanca” or white card, the expensive and
complicated exit permit. Official permission to come and go will no longer be required. With
this measure Raúl Castro’s government eliminates one of Washington’s main excuses for
maintaining its counterproductive trade embargo and travel prohibition. “We hope President Obama is
paying attention,” said Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, who adds that while
Obama has undertaken some reforms, he has not acknowledged that Cuba has taken any meaningful
steps. “After Cuba released scores of political prisoners following talks with the Catholic
Church; after the Castro government implemented the most significant changes in its
economic model in six decades; after Colombia turned to Cuba to help it broker peace talks
with the FARC, U.S. policy remains in an official state of denial that its goals are being met,”
Stephens added.
Soph’s Gradism Cards
Current policy will not lead to a breakthrough
Haven, Chief of Bureau/Havana, Cuba at The Associated Press, 2013
(Paul, The Vancouver Sun, “Relations thaw between Cuba, US: Small signs indicate the two longtime enemies are narrowing the gap
in the Florida Straits,” 6/22/2013, http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Relations+thaw+between+Cuba/8564785/story.html,
AFGA).
The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that
calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama
administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half
century by Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at
Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger
Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American
politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history.¶ "I
think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum lead ing to
any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more
audacious."
Gradual Removal Key
Arzeno, MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Strategy, ‘00
(Mario, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Castro’s time in power is short and Cuba without Castro is extremely vulnerable to becoming a
rogue state with the elements of transnational threats at Cuba’s doorstep once he is gone. The
Cuban American National Foundation grows weaker everyday and American public opinion that
believes change must happen grows stronger everyday. The time for change in Cuba is now.
Fidel Castro’s presence in Cuba should be inconsequential to that change. A gradual lifting of
the embargo should begin today with the United States committed to engaging Cuba in order
to prevent Cuba from becoming a threat to the United States in the future.
Gradual Removal is the way to go
Whitney, Author for People's World, ‘10
(W.T., 10/28/10, http://www.peoplesworld.org/un-general-assemblycondemns-u-s-cuba-blockade/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
By gradually lifting the embargo it shifts any blame for current ecomomic issues to the Cuban
government. Right now its so easy for Cuba to blame the US for all it sorrows by gradually
lifting the embargo it shifts any blame for current ecomomic issues to the Cuban government.
Right now its so easy for Cuba to blame the US for all it sorrows. Cuba can easily report
looks how cruel the US is to Cubans with the whole world on Cuba's side and only the US
and a couple others against Cuba. By lifting the embargo, gradually, Cuban start to get a
taste of freedom. Right now how would a Cuban know what its like to have choice. IMHO
the reason why China was partially forced to allow for a free market is because of Hong
Kong. Give Cuba but a taste and they will want more.
The Lifting of the Embargo must be Gradual
Peters, Member of the Lexington institute and advisor to the House of
Representatives , ‘12
(Phil, 2/10/12, http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2012/02/happy-embargoversary.html, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
The lifting of the embargo should be done gradually and through the negotiation of all
outstanding issues between both countries and the implementation by stages of all the
reforms Cuba needs. It is the sole remaining instrument for the US to use in influencing Cuba's
policies and the US should not hesitate to do so or feel guilty for doing so. This would be both
in the best interest of the Cuban people and of the US itself. A return to multiparty democracy
and to a market economy would be the fastest possible way for the island to integrate
efficiently to economic progress and to the competitive global society.
Gradualism is key—Empirics Prove
The Ledger, Floridian Newspaper, ‘11
(4/24/11,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730?p=1&tc=pg,
accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
But it's also apparent that the Cuban government is taking steps that Americans should
encourage with policies that reward reform and progress. Revoking the moderate tourism
policy, as the House committee proposes, would represent a punitive step backward by the
United States. A better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic
embargo and measured moves toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relationships.
If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws moves forward, that development could be
— and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and establishing political ties.
Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in order to promote
additional progress. The United States should not change its hard-line policy to coddle the
Castros. America should change its policy because Cuba is changing.
***Solvency***
Spill Over
Science Diplomacy is key to influence that spills over to global scientific
research and science diplomacy
Schreiterer 10- Senior Research Scholar at Center for International and Area Studies and Lecturer in Department of
Sociology, Yale University. (Urlich, “Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: toward a typology of
national approaches”, November 2010, http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/9/665.full.pdf+html, HW)
Influence on other countries’ public opinion, decision-makers and political or economic
leaders (plus leaders to be): ‘soft power’ has been defined as a nation’s ability to attract
sympathy, talents, capital, and political support to improve both its leverage and international
standing (Nye, 1990). Under such a heading, S&T activities appear to be: a promising entry point
for engaging citizens and civil society organizations worldwide. (Lord and Turekian, 2007: 769) The
global spread and assertion of norms and values associated with scientific research such as rational reasoning and
deliberation, universalism and disinterestedness, the acknowledgment of better data or arguments regardless of who is putting
them forward, so it looks, will
bolster peaceful development and conflict resolution even in nondemocratic, authoritarian societies. For foreign ministries, SD is but a specific aspect of international
S&T policy that co-evolves alongside numerous topic-driven S&T initiatives and cooperation
arrangements under the purview of other departments, intermediary organizations, universities or semi-autonomous R&D
agencies, most of whom want to follow through with their own agenda. The challenge to SD in a more narrow sense as well as
international S&T collaboration more generally thus lies in the ability to team up different players, to effectively buy into their
capacities in a way that joint priorities and objectives become feasible, and above all to devise customized approaches for different
target regions, issues of particular strategic interests, and global concerns. With
respect to characterizing different
national policies, this means that organizational arrangements, in particular the division of
labor and program responsibilities among government departments, research institutions and
the private sector, and governance modes, in particular funding streams, decision-making and
coordination, become another distinctive feature second to goals and objectives.
New scientific partnerships spill over to solve for broader science diplomacy
Hormats 12 - served as the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and
the Environment since 2009. (Robert, “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”, March 2012,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_diplomacy_and_twenty-first_century_statecraft_science__diplomacy.pdf, HW)
While the
scientific partnerships that the United States builds with other nations, and international
a means to address shared challenges, they also contribute
to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific partnerships are based on
disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and cultures. Processes that define the scientific
community—such as merit review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency—
are fundamental values from which the global community can reap benefits. History provides
many examples of how scientific cooperation can bolster diplomatic ties and cultural
exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our
relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the science and technology behind the agricultural “Green
Revolution” of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian
researchers working toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and
technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are committed to finding new ways to
work with other countries in science and technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint
research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and technology
community. Twenty-first century statecraft also requires that we build greater people-to people relationships. Science and
ties among universities and research labs, are
technology cooperation makes that possible. For example, through the Science Envoy program, announced by President Obama in
2009 in Cairo, Egypt, eminent U.S. scientists have met with counterparts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to build
relationships and identify opportunities for sustained cooperation. With over half of the world’s population under the age of thirty,
we are developing new ways to inspire the next generation of science and technology leaders.
Over the past five years, the Department of State’s International Fulbright Science & Technology Award has brought more than two
hundred exceptional students from seventy-three different countries to the United States to pursue graduate studies. Through the
Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, the United States recently invited young innovators from North Africa,
the Middle East, and Asia to post YouTube videos describing solutions to problems they face at home. The top submissions will
receive financial support, business mentorship, and networking opportunities. Advancing
the rights of women and
girls is a central focus of U.S. foreign policy and science diplomacy. As we work to empower women and
girls worldwide, we must ensure that they have access to science education and are able to participate and contribute fully during
every stage of their lives. Recently, we partnered with Google, Intel, Microsoft, and many other high-tech businesses to launch
TechWomen, a program that brings promising women leaders from the Middle East to Silicon Valley to meet industry thoughtleaders, share knowledge and experiences, and bolster cultural understanding. Science diplomacy
is not new. It is,
however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its importance will continue
to grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights that “science,
engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant
force in globalization and international economic development.” These interrelated issues are priorities for
the United States and, increasingly, the world. The Department of State is committed to utilizing our capabilities in Washington, DC,
and throughout the world to connect with scientists, entrepreneurs, and innovators for the mutual benefit of all of our people. In
addition to Environment, Science and Technology, and Health Officers stationed at U.S. embassies, almost fifty doctoral-level
scientists and engineers work at the Department of State through the AAAS Diplomacy Fellows program and the Jefferson Science
Fellows program. Through this cadre
of science and foreign policy experts, the Department of State
will continue to advance policies that bolster the global repertoire of scientific knowledge and
further enable technological innovation.
Even if we don’t completely solve it’s a reason to continue science cooperationvoting aff allows progress that overcomes any shortcomings
Dabelko 09- Professor and Director of Environmental Studies at the George V. Voinovich
School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University in Athens (Geoff, “Science diplomacy:
An expectations game”, Grist 2009, http://grist.org/article/science-diplomacy-an-expectationsgame/, MB)
But this view of science diplomacy is overly pessimistic. It sets unrealistically high expectations such dialogue could never hope to
achieve. Science
diplomacy is not meant to solve all aspects of conflicts or distrustful
relationships, so setting such a high bar is a bit of a straw man. Science, as well as dialogue on the management of shared
natural resources, remains an under-utilized and under-studied tool for trust-building, so it is
premature to declare it a failure before we have sufficient evidence for evaluation.¶ Veterans of
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and other Cold War-era scientific dialogues might suggest we are neglecting
some rich experiences from this era. It bears remembering that Pugwash was awarded the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize (and current U.S.
Science Adviser John Holdren delivered the acceptance speech as then executive director of Pugwash).¶ A distinct but related arena
for further policy attempts and research inquiries is
environmental peacebuilding, where mutual interdependence
around natural resources provides pathways for dialogue in the midst of conflict. The establishment
of the Cordillera del Condor Transboundary Protected Area between Ecuador and Peru was a result of integrating joint
environmental management structures in the 1998 peace agreement that ended a long-festering border conflict. Negotiation over
shared resources, such as water, can be a diplomatic lifeline for otherwise-hostile countries, such as Israel and Jordan, which held
secret “picnic table” talks to manage the Jordan River while they were officially at war. And the
U.S. military has
successfully uses environmental cooperation to engage both friends and adversaries.¶
Collaboration on scientific and environmental issues won’t solve all our problems. And defining and identifying success remains a
fundamental challenge when success is the absence of something (conflict). But let’s
not retreat to the common
church-and-state division where scientists fear being “contaminated” by participating in
policy-relevant dialogues. And let’s certainly not declare science diplomacy a failure—and
stop trying to make it a success—based on unrealistic expectations for the benefits such
efforts might produce.
Sci Dip is Cool
Science diplomacy is key to solve all of the major problems of the 21st century
Fedoroff 9 - Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), U.S. Department of State, Washington DC 20520, USA. (Nina, “Science Diplomacy in the 21st
Century”, 1/9/2009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286740801636X#, HW)
But the problems are deep and stubborn. Perhaps the most poignant disparities exist between the countries of the
developed world and much of Africa, where climate, disease, soil exhaustion, and a host of other problems contribute. In his book
titled “The Bottom Billion,” economist Paul Collier (http://users.ox.ac. uk/~econpco/) offers an insightful analysis of the many factors
that contribute to trapping the poorest nations in continuing cycles of poverty and unrest. The
global food crisis of 2008
triggered food riots in more than 30 countries and calls for a new Green Revolution. The first
Green Revolution, however, was relatively straightforward, if not easy: improved crop
varieties and increased fertilizer use. The next Green Revolution will be more difficult, even if
we succeed in overcoming the deep and widespread mistrust of using modern molecular
methods for the genetic improvement of crop plants. In a crowded world, we no longer have the luxury of
focusing on the single variable of agricultural productivity. Food, water, energy, health, and economic
development are all intertwined. Progress will depend on a high level of education,
particularly in science and engineering. All will be impacted by climate change and politics—
everywhere. Climate change is a wake-up call to the awareness that we live in a world without
borders. Airplanes can make SARS and multidrug-resistant TB everyone’s problem in a heartbeat. Trade barriers
between nations and farm subsidies in developed nations stifle agricultural growth in
developing countries. The rush toward renewable energy from biofuels accelerates deforestation in the Amazon, however
indirectly, and with each acre lost, another multitude of species goes extinct. Wall Street’s problems echo around the world. And
all of these seemingly separate problems turn out to be interconnected. Food and energy are now
viewed as fungible. Growing the food—and feed and fiber and fuel—demanded by a still expanding and increasingly affluent human
population requires innovations not just in agricultural productivity but also in water and land management, food processing, and
transportation. Decimating what remains of the tropic’s forests will as surely exacerbate climate change as it will reduce biodiversity.
It’s one big thorny tangle: people, money, food, energy, health, water, land, climate,
biodiversity. How do we as scientists begin to think—and act—on a global scale to address
such complicated problems? It seems to me that we must first become citizens not just of our
own nations, but of this world without borders. We need to see, experience, and identify with the peoples and
the problems of other nations and to recognize the complexity and interconnections among the challenges facing 21st century
humanity. And perhaps most importantly of all, we need to understand, at a deep gut level, that all our fates are truly intertwined.
We must move quickly to develop the science that will allow us to model and understand the
complex system that is our planet and its crust of human activities. We need to invent efficient,
nonpolluting means of local power generation. We need to invest in the research that will allow us to improve how we manage
water, grow food, battle disease, and build economies into the next generation—and the next. Science,
of course,
provides the common language to build bridges between cultures.
Science diplomacy is key to relations, economic growth, national security and
climate change
Hormats 12 - served as the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and
the Environment since 2009. (Robert, “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”, March 2012,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_diplomacy_and_twenty-first_century_statecraft_science__diplomacy.pdf, HW)
Science diplomacy is a central component of America’s twenty-first century statecraft agenda.
The United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and technology can play in
addressing major challenges, such as making our economy more competitive, tackling global
health issues, and dealing with climate change. American leadership in global technological
advances and scientific research, and the dynamism of our companies and universities in
these areas, is a major source of our economic, foreign policy, and national security strength.
Additionally, it is a hallmark of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we believe the
United States should celebrate science and see it—as was the case since the time of Benjamin Franklin—as an opportunity to
advance the prosperity, health, and overall well-being of Americans and the global community. Innovation policy is part of our
science diplomacy engagement. More
than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science and
technology. It is estimated that America’s knowledge-based industries represent 40 percent of
our economic growth and 60 percent of our exports. Sustaining a vibrant knowledge-based economy, as well as
a strong commitment to educational excellence and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and
enjoy upward mobility. America attracts people from all over the world—scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs—who
want the opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, our innovation economy. At the same time, our
bilateral and
multilateral dialogues support science, technology, and innovation abroad by promoting
improved education; research and development funding; good governance and transparent
regulatory policies; markets that are open and competitive; and policies that allow
researchers and companies to succeed, and, if they fail, to have the opportunity to try again. We advocate for
governments to embrace and enforce an intellectual property system that allows innovators to reap the benefits of their ideas and
also rewards their risk taking. Abraham Lincoln himself held a patent on an invention, a device for preventing ships from being
grounded on shoals. He said in his “Second Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions” in 1859 that patents “added the fuel of interest to
the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things.”
Science diplomacy is a unique situation by which the US can improve its
international standing
Agre 11 - American physician, professor, and molecular biologist who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his
discovery of aquaporins. (Peter, “Life on the River of Science”, 1/28/11, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/416.short,
HW)
Science has always been one of the most international of human endeavors, and this trend is
certainly increasing. Every year, thousands of young scientists come to the United States from abroad to undertake scientific
education and research. Thus, science provides a unique approach to advancing good will toward
America in the international arena. It is no secret that the U.S. government is viewed negatively in the Muslim world,
especially after the military intrusions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Zogby Poll [(9); see table below] reveals a clear bimodal response.
The great majority of citizens of five moderate Arab nations held distinctly unfavorable views
of the United States in general. In marked contrast, these same individuals held favorable
views of U.S. science and technology. This provides an opportunity to use our background as
nongovernment scientists to reinforce the positive: that U.S.-generated science and
technology may improve the lives of people all around the world. The potential to establish
contact and engage with scientists in countries considered adversarial to the U.S. government
is an opportunity for science to serve as a unique bridge. Founded in 2008, the center is directed by Vaughan
Turekian, an atmospheric geochemist and international policy expert, with special advisor Norman Neureiter, a chemist with
extensive policy experience. I was greatly pleased to participate as senior scientist in a series of trips abroad (10). Recognizing that
some of our visits were to countries where there are serious intergovernmental tensions related to a wide range of issues such as
proliferation, human rights, and economic openness, each visit was undertaken with an independent nongovernmental organization
and with private funding, in most cases from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation. Efforts were made to inform appropriate U.S.
authorities of such visits, but it was to be plain in every case that we served as representatives of the U.S. scientific and research
community, not the U.S. government.
Sci Dip k2 Relations
Science diplomacy is a key diplomatic tool – even in strained relationships
Colglazier 12 - the U.S. Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
(William, “Science and Diplomacy”, 2/17/2012, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6070/775.short, HW)
The world has much to gain from developing more knowledge- and innovation-based societies
and from spreading scientific values, including meritocracy and transparency, that support
democracy. This fundamental assumption underlies a renewed interest in science diplomacy, along with the
widespread recognition that science and technology (S&T) are strategic assets for U.S. diplomacy. My
recent appointment as S&T Adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has increased my
appreciation of the great potential of America's S&T capabilities for enhancing our foreign
policy. S&T are strategic assets for U.S. diplomacy because all countries, regardless of their
politics, culture, and worldview, respect our S&T capabilities and want to engage with U.S.
scientists and engineers. This is true even of countries with which governmental relations are
strained. S&T are critical to fostering innovation and economic prosperity in a highly
competitive and interconnected world, and are essential for solving national and global
problems.
AT – Alternate Causes
The plan is a necessary starting point to solve alt causes – k2 Latin American
relations and environmental impacts
Johnson 12 – CSIS, a senior fellow and director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. He has more than 20 years of experience in Western Hemisphere affairs spanning
policymaking, policy advocacy, and public affairs in the Department of Defense, the Washington policy community, and the State
Department. From 2007 to 2009, Johnson served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere affairs,
overseeing the development and execution of policies, strategies, and programs governing hemispheric defense and security ties.
From 1999 to 2006, Johnson served as a senior foreign policy analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, testifying
before Congress and authoring studies on U.S. policy as well as Latin American politics, trade, development, and security. His
commentaries have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Business Week, and Diario Las Américas. His broadcast
appearances have included CNN en Español, Univisión, Telemundo, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. He is the author of Iran’s Influence in the
Americas. (Stephen, “U.S.-Cuba Academic and Science-Based Exchanges”, August 2012,
http://csis.org/files/publication/120821_Johnson_U.S.-CubaExchanges_Web.pdf, HW)
As in other countries, U.S. and Cuban authorities look favorably on initiatives that benefit their
societies. Educational institutions should make a point of creating exchange opportunities
that are not charitable but constructive and use participants from both countries equally.
This approach is especially important as a starting point for new conference series. If equality
is established at the beginning , it will be far easier to develop plans that lead to a successful
academic exchange . For conferences, there are three options—hosting them in Cuba, in a
third-country, or in the United States. Holding seminars in Cuba or even a third country defeats
the purpose of exposing Cuban scholars and academics to the United States. For now, an event
in Cuba poses substantial challenges in seeking a host, arranging venues, obtaining OFAC
licenses, transferring funds, and scheduling (planning should start a year in advance). Moreover,
control over the event is in the hands of the Cuban government. Holding the conference in a
third country has the advantage of making travel from Cuba easier, as visa problems for both
parties are reduced. Mexico, Canada, the Dominican Republic, or Spain may be options. Yet,
other factors could cloud the bilateral nature of the conference and adversely affect later
exchanges. For one, a high-profile conference could irritate sensitivities in the host nation. For
another, it could place the event in an unfamiliar territory where it would be difficult to control
intrusions by interest groups favoring or opposing either party. A conference in the United
States avoids some of these pitfalls. However, success in organizing one depends on the
number of Cubans involved and their readiness to travel. Various sources claim that inviting
fewer than 15 persons to the United States works well, although the latest Latin America Studies
Association conference in May 2012 brought in 60, who mingled among some 4,000 other
attendees. However, managing large groups is extremely ambitious and less likely to be
approved because of the scrutiny such groups would face from both the Cuban and the U.S.
government. Ideally, if a U.S.-Cuban exchange is the sole purpose of the event, no plans should
be made until funding is guaranteed and all licenses or exit permits are approved. After that,
planning may take several months. Another key factor is finding an appropriate, credible incountry partner that can help win approval within the Cuban regime’s bureaucracy. In most
cases, academic exchanges may be facilitated through the international relations directorate
of the desired institution, such as the University of Havana or the Academy of Sciences. Once
selected, experienced exchange organizers generally agree that it may be best to let the incountry partner identify individual participants for the exchange. For now, American attempts to
recruit participants may subject candidates to government monitoring, targeting, and possible
harassment. To reduce the risk of getting stuck with ciphers, however, event organizers can
require participants to make substantive presentations during their exchange. New and useful
subject areas could include sustainable food production , how to conduct environmental
impact assessments, disaster response , and demographic challenges . Upon conclusion, a
successful outcome is helped by the agreement of both sides to publish a summary of
activities to build awareness that the work accomplished benefits both countries and does
not further any hostile intent. Foreign Study Opportunities Since the late 1990s, it has been
easier for American scholars to study and teach in Cuba than vice versa. In January 2011, the
Obama administration eased Bush-era limits on U.S. scholars studying in Cuba, and university
programs offering semesters in Cuba are rising, along with arts and history tours that border on
tourism. U.S. students of modest means may study medicine in Cuba for free, on the premise
that they will return to serve underprivileged communities in the United States. Most U.S.
colleges with Cuba study programs partner with the University of Havana and offer Spanish
immersion, as well as courses in the arts, social sciences, and humanities, although Cuba has
nearly two dozen other institutions of higher learning at various locations on the island. Tuition,
travel, and other associated fees for U.S. students may cost as much as $20,000 a semester.
While some programs appear to expose students to an idealized Cuba, a casual survey of press
interviews with some returning scholars suggests that they see what they want to see. Some
harbor utopian illusions, while others clearly do not. While few Cuban nationals may take
undergraduate or graduate courses in the United States now, opening digital educational
opportunities, ride-aboard exchanges on marine research vessels, long-distance mentoring,
and study opportunities in third countries where U.S. institutions have foreign campuses may
be ways to build confidence that will lead the Cuban government to permit more scholarly
visits to the United States. Cuban officials willing to speak on the subject maintain that the U.S.
government should refrain from sponsorship, that expenses need to be covered for Cuban
students, and that postgraduate researchers and later graduate students are the most likely
subjects to receive travel permits. More extensive partner agreements with U.S. colleges and
universities with Cuba’s university system offer possibilities for a time when relations
improve between the two governments. Examples already exist between the University of
Havana and many higher educational institutions in South America. Conclusions For now,
prospects for meaningful exchanges and study opportunities between Cuba and the United
States remain limited because of political and financial factors. Brief encounters like
conferences do take place in both countries and third nations. However, regular extended
study opportunities are really practical only for Americans who visit Cuba. And while private
citizens make up almost all U.S. exchange and student populations, only trusted state workers
may participate on Cuba’s side. In that sense, exchanges are still a one-way street. Over the
long term, making exchanges less one-sided and more productive is worth the effort. For both
nations, exchanges help participants gain situational and contextual awareness of the
environment that their counterparts inhabit and establish communication links that can be
strengthened when diplomatic relations improve. For foreign participants, they offer a lens
through which to view the United States in a positive light. Moreover, they afford a basis for
extending cooperation in mutually beneficial areas when and if political relations between
the two countries begin to improve. Although the United States has an abiding interest in the
well-being and freedom of Cubans as neighbors, particularly the courageous dissidents for
whom it has been a steadfast advocate, it should be willing to open channels for discussion with
members of the regime as well. As the Castro brothers face fewer days in leadership, such
channels become even more salient. Because education , medicine , and science are
important sectors in the Cuban state and have been traditional areas of mutual interest, a
concerted effort on these subjects makes sense. Experienced organizers suggest that the best
ways to get the most out of exchange opportunities are the following: ■ Plan early for
conferences: the bureaucratic hurdles can take months to overcome. ■ Ensure that exchange
events incorporate balanced inputs from both sides and respect counterparts’ pride of
accomplishment. ■ Ensure that exchanges are mutually beneficial and avoid political “hot
buttons” as well as controversial figures. ■ Allow a partner institution in Cuba to navigate the
bureaucratic maze on the other side of the Florida Straits. ■ For now, refrain from attempting
to recruit participants in Cuba or give too much prominence to particular attendees: doing so
could have unfavorable consequences for them. ■ Regarding study opportunities in the United
States, government sponsorship seems to be a deal breaker. Furthermore, sponsoring
institutions should be prepared to assume all costs. ■ Ways to develop confidence leading to
greater openness with students may include developing long-distance education
opportunities, ride-aboard agreements on research vessels, and study opportunities in third
countries where U.S. institutions have foreign campuses. Certain policy changes on each side
could benefit these exchanges: ■ The United States could streamline the nonimmigrant visa
application process and lower fees . ■ Cuba could eliminate the need for exit permits so that
all citizens—state employees, students, and independent entrepreneurs alike—could travel
abroad more freely. ■ By respecting civil liberties such as freedom of expression and
association along with greater economic liberalization, the Cuban government could make life
on the island more tolerable to curb emigration. Until the last recommendation becomes a
reality, the U.S. Congress will have little appetite for rescinding the Cuban Adjustment Act .
Still, given the trend in modest economic and even minor political reforms, the time could be
ripe for U.S.-Cuban people-to-people exchanges to begin to make a difference. The Obama
administration thinks so and has eased some limits on contacts and travel. For now, academic
exchanges will not assist the cause of Cuba’s human rights activists, aid Cuba’s independent
journalists, or nurture independent Cuban nongovernmental organizations for which separate
programs exist. What they will do is sustain lines of communication in anticipation of the day
when political conditions improve . Meanwhile, meaningful reform on Cuba’s part should be
met by a meaningful U.S. response. In 2002, President George W. Bush said, “The goal of the
United States policy toward Cuba is not a permanent embargo on Cuba’s economy. The goal is
freedom for Cuba’s people”—even those, like most of the population, who are compelled to
work for the state. 50
Cooperation spills over to solve alternate causes
Cathy Campbell, 2010, President and chief executive officer of CRDF Global - an independent
nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical collaboration, “Send
in the Scientists: Why Mobilizing America’s Researchers Makes Sense for Diplomacy”
http://scienceprogress.org/2010/10/send_scientists/
Mobilizing America’s researchers for science diplomacy makes sense for three reasons. First,
many of today’s global challenges—food, water, energy, climate, and health—require
technical solutions. Scientists, engineers and innovators must be involved in understanding
these problems and then designing and implementing the proposed solutions. In a flat world,
scientists must work in partnership with colleagues around the world. Very few of today’s
global challenges are confined to any single country. Disease, drought, and environmental
degradation know no borders. They can be successfully addressed only through cross-border
collaboration.
AT – Say No
Cuba is open to foreign biotech investment
Nicholas Ward, 2012, National Post Reporter, “Investment climate dawns in Cuba, but U.S.
stays shut” AP
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T
17783362277&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T1778336228
1&cisb=22_T17783362280&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=397227&docNo=16
Larger-scale foreign investment is still restricted, but investors and observers in Cuba predict a
relaxation of the rules in the near future. Hugo Pons, vice-president of Cuba's National
Association of Economists and Accountants (ANEC), is optimistic Cuba will become more open to
foreign investment, specifically in the biotech and mining industries. "Cuba has the knowledge and
capabilities to develop new technologies. [But] to do that, Cuba needs capital, and [the
government] is open to [listening] to proposals of mutual benefit," he says. The Canadian government
and Canadian business leaders have cultivated close ties with Cuba. Many Canadian companies are also exploring business
opportunities there, hoping to be ready when and if the market opens up. While it is uncertain how quickly Cuba will implement any
new reforms, it is unlikely to retreat from the ones already introduced. "I don't think anybody or anything can stop this process,"
says Marc Frank, correspondent with the London-based Financial Times. "The
changes they're making and the way
they're making them ... it is not reversible."
Cuba would say yes
EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis
University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School
of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration”
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php
The recent dramatic events taking place in the broader Middle East pose major challenges for
the United States, making it all the more important that the Obama administration craft policies
that respond to the dynamics of change in the region. One often-neglected but powerful
diplomatic tool is known as "science diplomacy," the sharing of scientific information and
establishing scientific collaborations with nations in which the United States has limited political
relations. Polls show that American scientific research is widely respected throughout the
world, even in nations whose citizens do not, overall, have a positive opinion of the United
States. For instance, a 2004 Zogby poll showed that only 11 percent of Moroccans have a
positive view of the United States, but 90 percent had a favorable view of U.S. science. Of 43
countries surveyed, U.S. science exceeded the general favorability of the United States by an
average of 23 points. For this reason, it is often possible to establish constructive discussions
and cooperative scientific efforts, especially ones that relate to food, water, health, energy and
other human needs, when other channels of communication are closed.
Lifting Barriers Key
Lifting restrictions would rapidly increase cooperation b/t the US and Cuba –
solves for Cuba’s limiting lack of laboratory space
Agre 11 - American physician, professor, and molecular biologist who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his
discovery of aquaporins. (Peter, “Life on the River of Science”, 1/28/11, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/416.short,
HW)
Cuba. Together with members of the New America Foundation, a trip to Havana, Cuba, was made in November 2009. Our trip, the
first AAAS visit since 1997, included a visit to the Finlay Center for Vaccines Research and Production, where we observed the Cuban
efforts to prevent infectious diseases such as type B meningococcal meningitis. Endemic
before the Revolution,
malaria has been eliminated from Cuba, despite a heavy malaria presence in Haiti, just to the
east. Cuban efforts to provide universal prenatal health care have succeeded in raising the
average life span to 78+ years, equivalent to that in the United States. The University of Havana generates
a large number of science graduates, but laboratory opportunities are limited. Certainly the
investment of funds in laboratories to train young scientists could be mutually beneficial to
Cuba and the United States. Potential scientific collaborations could be rapidly undertaken
once the five-decade political standoff between our governments is resolved.
Lifting visa and export restrictions key to science cooperation
EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN, 2011, Founding director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy at Rice University, is a former U.S. ambassador to Syria and to Israel; Lane is a senior
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute as well as the Malcolm Gillis
University Professor and a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University; Matthews is a
fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute and a lecturer for the Wiess School
of Natural Sciences at Rice University. “Science, diplomacy and international collaboration”
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Science-diplomacy-and-internationalcollaboration-1683250.php
Many U.S. scientists are eager to work with their counterparts in other countries, but
significant barriers to international collaborations remain in place, especially U.S. policies on
visas and export controls. Foreign students and visiting scientists continue to have trouble
obtaining visas to study or attend conferences in the United States. In addition, the State
Department's handling of export controls limits interactions between scientists and in some
cases inhibits U.S. industry development. By deeming a large and overly broad list of scientific
areas as military-sensitive (including computer software and hardware, biological materials and
space technology, much of which is available from foreign companies) the federal government
has created an environment where collaboration is unnecessarily difficult and sometimes
impossible. Although the Obama administration has been working to improve how the federal
government handles export controls as well as visas, there is still much to be done.
Offcase
Non-UQ
No disads – small agreements already in place make them non-unique and the
plan is popular
Pollack 2004
[Andrew Pollack. Holds a master’s degree in civil and environmental engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has covered the business and science of
biotechnology since 2000. Writing for New York Times. “U.S. Permits 3 Cancer Drugs From
Cuba.” July 15, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/business/technology-us-permits-3cancer-drugs-from-cuba.html] WD
The federal government is permitting a California biotechnology company to license three
experimental cancer drugs from Cuba, making an exception to the policy of tightly restricting
trade with that country. The company, CancerVax, had said late last year that it was trying to
license the drugs and had been awaiting needed permission from the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control. That permission has been granted, and CancerVax is expected
to announce it today. CancerVax executives said that it was the first time an American
biotechnology company had obtained permission to license a drug from Cuba, a country that
some industry executives and scientists say is surprisingly strong in biotechnology for a
developing nation. In 1999, SmithKline Beecham, a large conventional pharmaceutical
company now known as GlaxoSmithKline, licensed a Cuban vaccine for meningitis B that it is
testing in clinical trials. ''I think there are other product candidates and technology in Cuba
that could be helpful to the American people, not just the American people but people around
the world,'' said David F. Hale, chief executive of CancerVax, a newly public company that does
not yet have any drugs on the market. Mr. Hale said that he had been pursuing the Cuban drugs
since he first saw a poster about the work at an American cancer conference three years ago. A
spokesman for the State Department, which helps rule on such licenses, said that the
exception had been made because of the life-saving potential of the experimental Cuban
drugs and that the license approval did not represent a relaxation of the trade policy. ''These
three drugs are claimed to be revolutionary life-saving medications,'' said the spokesman, who
agreed to comment only if not identified by name. ''As such, upon review it was decided that
the company should have an opportunity to further research and verify the claims about these
drugs.'' CancerVax, which is based in Carlsbad, Calif., plans to test the drugs in clinical trials
and bring them to market if they pass muster. The first one, Mr. Hale said, which has already
shown some promise in small trials, could reach the market in 2008 or 2009. The licensing deal
calls for CancerVax to pay $6 million over the next three years, during the development stage. If
products reach the market, the company would pay up to $35 million more. As a government
condition of allowing the license, payments to Cuba during the developmental phase would
be in goods like food or medical supplies, to avoid providing the Cuban government with
currency. Any payments after drugs reach the market, Mr. Hale said, could be half in cash. The
agreement comes shortly after the Bush administration put into effect new restrictions on visits
to Cuba and cash remittances by Americans. The administration has also stated that it believes
Cuba has at least a limited biological weapons research effort and that it has provided
biotechnology to other ''rogue states'' that might be used either for medical purposes or in
development of biological weapons. The Cuban government has denied it is developing such
weapons. Representatives from both parties had sent letters to Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell urging that permission be granted on medical grounds. One letter writer, Senator
Christopher J. Dodd, the Democrat from Connecticut, hailed the government decision as good
news in a statement issued yesterday. ''Saving lives shouldn't be a political issue,'' he said. H.P.
Goldfield and Richard A. Popkin, Washington lawyers hired by CancerVax to help win approval,
said there had been no real opposition.
Cuba and US increase discussions, increasing travel approval
Associated Press 6/17 (“US, Cuba to resume talks on direct mail, official says.” 7/13/13.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/us-cuba-to-resume-talks-on-direct-mail-officialsays/. KJ)
The resumption in talks does not signify any change in the Obama administration's Cuba policy, the official said, stressing that the
discussions are taking place in the context of the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992 and are
consistent with the U.S. interest "in promoting the free flow of information to, from and
within Cuba." ¶ ¶ Cuba and the United States have had no direct mail service since 1963, though
letters do go back and forth via third countries. ¶ ¶ In and of themselves, the discussions are not
particularly significant, but the fact the two Cold War enemies are talking at all is. And, in the
past, both governments have used the bilateral meetings as a pretext to discuss wider issues .
In 2009, a senior State Department official in Havana for mail talks ended up staying six extra days and even spoke secretly with
Cuba's deputy foreign minister -- then the highest-level meeting between the two sides in decades. ¶ ¶ The mail talks and separate
negotiations on immigration have been on hold since then over demands by Washington that Cuba release jailed American
subcontractor Alan Gross. ¶ ¶ Gross was arrested in December 2009 while on a USAID-funded democracy building program and is
serving a 15-year sentence after being caught bringing communications equipment onto the island illegally. ¶ ¶ Washington has
continued to insist that no major progress in improving ties is possible while Gross is in jail. Cuba, for its part, is asking Washington to
release four Cuban intelligence agents serving long jail terms in the United States. A fifth completed his sentence earlier this year
and was allowed to return to Cuba after he renounced his American citizenship. ¶ ¶ In
recent months, Cuban and U.S.
officials have spoken of a better working relationship, with diplomats on both sides routinely
granted approval to travel outside each other's capital. But whether the behind-the-scenes thaw will result in
any improvement in the countries' formal relationship is anybody's guess.¶ Read more:
Now is time to increase relations, more Cuban Americans welcome relations
with Cuba
Haven 6/21 (Paul, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles.” 7/13/13.
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f150f522ad1030d68179cc16644f6483/cuba-us-try-talkingbut-face-many-obstacles. KJ)
Despite that rhetoric, many experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose
engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who
fled immediately after the 1959 revolution.¶ Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on
Thursday at the popular Miami restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two
said they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks. Several said they hoped for much more movement.¶
Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an end to
the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he said.¶
Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good.
"The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.¶ Those opinions
dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected CubanAmericans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic
relations with Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of
people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba.¶ "In general, there is an open
attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany, director of
the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. " Short of perhaps lifting the
embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for some sort of understanding with the
Cuban government."
Ptix Link Turns
Science Cooperation
Science cooperation is bipartisan – overwhelming congressional support
House.gov 12 – House of representatives media and reporting service. (House, “Carnahan Introduces Bipartisan
International Science Cooperation Legislation”, 6/7/12, http://votesmart.org/public-statement/702595/carnahan-introducesbipartisan-international-science-cooperation-legislation#.Ud3ScPnVCSp, HW)
Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) today joined with Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
(R-FL), Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to introduce the International Science
and Technology Cooperation Act (ISTCA). This legislation will establish a body at the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy to make certain that international science and technology strategy across American agencies is coordinated.
The bill would strengthen U.S. science and technology enterprise, improve economic and
national security and support U.S. foreign policy goals. "International science and technology
cooperation promotes the national security and economic competitiveness of the United
States," said Rep. Carnahan. "Forging networks abroad helps the United States and its partners find
technical solutions to key global challenges, promotes economic development at home,
promotes American values, and protects our national security by contributing to the longterm stability of countries vulnerable to terrorist influence." The ISTCA is endorsed by The American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and CRDF Global, an independent nonprofit organization that promotes
international scientific and technical collaboration. "As
scientific issues become ever more global, it is
essential for the United States to develop a coherent approach to addressing scientific
challenges and opportunities," said Vaughan Turekian, AAAS chief international officer and director of the Center for
Science Diplomacy. "Legislation such as this would provide one way to help the government
organize around those efforts. Science is an area that has always had the strong support of
both major U.S. political parties. It is particularly encouraging to see that international science
cooperation is being reaffirmed by Congress as well as the Administration." Last Congress, the
International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009 passed the House with
overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 341-52. This legislation will improve U.S.
participation in international science and technology cooperation, ensure more efficient use of resources,
and help the U.S. maintain its leadership in the global science arena, while creating NO additional
spending. "As an organization that facilitates international science and technology, CRDF Global works closely with thousands of
scientists and scores of U.S. government agencies and laboratories," said CRDF Global President and CEO Cathy Campbell. "We
believe the
International Science and Technology Cooperation Act is a solid, bipartisan approach
to establish greater strategic impact, improve coordination across agencies, maximize limited resources and increase
efficiencies." Rep. Carnahan and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen were joined in introducing the ISTCA by
original co-sponsors Judy Biggert, David Cicilline, Eliot L. Engel, Rush Holt, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Daniel Lipinski, Brad Miller, James Moran and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Science cooperation bipartisan and key to leadership – recent bills and empirics
prove
Campbell 10 - president and CEO of the Arlington, VA-based CRDF—a non-government organization focused on establishing
peace and prosperity across the globe through science and technology cooperation. Ms. Campbell has nearly three decades of
international science and technology policy and program management experience. - See more at:
http://blog.psaonline.org/2010/03/18/science-diplomacy-gets-a-boost-with-new-bipartisan-bill-2/#sthash.8LcSIRKI.dpuf. (Cathy,
“Science Diplomacy gets a Boost with New Bipartisan Bill”, 3/18/10, http://blog.psaonline.org/2010/03/18/science-diplomacy-getsa-boost-with-new-bipartisan-bill-2/, HW)
Last Friday, Reps.
Howard Berman (D- CA) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced the Global
Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act, which proposes an
increase in the application of science and scientific engagement in America’s foreign policy. This
follows the recent appointment of U.S. Science Envoys by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and
according to its authors, “formalizes the Obama Administration’s intention to enhance
international science cooperation.” Science and technology (S&T) remain among the most
admired aspects of American society, even among nations without a wholly favorable opinion
of the U.S. Science has the power to inform decisions and serve as a core instrument of diplomacy. Science cooperation
is critical to America’s ability to win worldwide respect and support and can help build bridges
for peace and prosperity worldwide. Beyond simply calling for a larger role for science, the bipartisan bill
details a variety of applications ranging from advancements in academic science and
technology to the nonproliferation of WMD expertise, all of which seem pragmatic and feasible. On the
surface, the bill addresses a sensible and thorough approach to deploying scientific research and technological development to
engage foreign counterparts over the long term. Notably, this bill seems to reflect the “smart power” sentiments of former Deputy
Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph S. Nye Jr., whose 2007 editorial challenged
readers to, “Stop getting Mad, America. Get Smart.” ‘Smart
power’ (soft power) advocates contend that hard
power (military might) alone cannot sustainably secure America’s long-term goals. Instead,
the smart power approach to foreign policy invests in the global good, builds sensible alliances
and collaborations by placing America’s strengths forward, and charges the public—
nonprofits, academic institutions and individuals who, by the very nature of their work,
engage in public diplomacy each day—to identify and pursue real opportunities to achieve
peace, stability and prosperity. Among the most valuable assets of American smart power is
science. The bill further echoes the appeals of former Under Secretary of State Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky, who advocated
for a larger role for science and technology-based engagement throughout her tenure. As far back as the early, post-Cold War days,
there were those who saw the long-term value of science engagement for building a safer and more prosperous America. There
is also a long history of bipartisanship on science diplomacy that includes the development of
scientific exchanges between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the U.S.Japan S&T cooperation in the 1960s and the U.S.-China Agreement on Cooperation in Science
and Technology in 1979. For those of us involved in international science engagement—particularly non-governmental
organizations, this bill represents a very important first step in realizing the opportunities that lie ahead. The nascent bill’s journey
has only just begun and many hurdles remain as it is reviewed by various Congressional committees, and navigates the greatest
obstacles of any new legislation—time and relevance to contemporary concerns. Collectively,
however, we hope that
given the tremendous opportunities and potential gains for America to restore its global
leadership, to effect solutions to WMD proliferation and to vastly expand access to potential collaborators, business partners,
academic exchanges and the types of valuable relationships that transcend political borders, that such hurdles will be overcome.
Time will tell.
Generic Embargo
Plan popular – change in political atmosphere means Obama won’t lose PC
AP 6/21
(Associated Press, WDEF News, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles,”
http://www.wdef.com/news/world/story/Cuba-US-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles/NF6nxerKV0SVtDgeVp-G0A.cspx, 6/23. RJ)
HAVANA (AP) — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward
rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in
relations could be just over the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times
before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶
In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration
issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed
the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has
apparently not yet happened. Castro
has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including
on both sides describe a sea
making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats
change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American
diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S.
diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶
Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State
Department officials — a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had
been suspended for more than two years. Washington
has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials,
including the daughter of Cuba's president.¶ "These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to
move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real
progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser
on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are
equally high."¶ Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an outspoken
critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing
with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there
are also indications of a warming attitude to
negotiating with Cuba.¶ Cuban President Raul Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose
of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still
barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for
Cuba's cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and
refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms.¶ Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to
travel recently due to Castro's changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's
worries about the threat posed by dissidents.¶ Likewise, a U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return
home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings
with Cuba.¶ To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them.¶ The State Department has
kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human
trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by
Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.¶ And then
there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing
communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again,
U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United
States, something Washington has said it won't consider.¶ Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in
New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is too
concerned with upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its
history.¶ "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic
breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious."¶ Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by
those long opposed to engagement. Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart, a Florida Republican, called the recent
overtures "disturbing."¶ "Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban people's oppressors, the administration should demand
that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and American humanitarian aid worker Alan
Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights," he said.¶ Another CubanAmerican politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship."¶ Despite
that rhetoric, many
experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose
engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who
fled immediately after the 1959 revolution.¶ Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular
Miami restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding
migration talks. Several said they hoped for much more movement.¶ Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born
in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties.
"There was a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he said.¶ Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S.
45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good. "The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.¶
Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected Cuban-Americans in MiamiDade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a
survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba.¶ "In general,
there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany,
director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to
be increasing support for some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."
Plan popular – key republican supports bill
CNN 09
(February 23, 2009, CNNPolitics.com, “Key GOP senator calls Cuba embargo ineffective,”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/23/cuba.lugar/, ACCESSED 6/24, RJ)
Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a draft report Monday
saying it is time to reconsider longtime U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba.¶ "After 47 years ...
the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing
democracy to the Cuban people,' " Lugar, R-Indiana, wrote in a letter that accompanied the report.¶ "The current U.S.
policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize
the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that
enhances U.S. interests."¶ Lugar's letter preceded a 21-page draft report by the Republican members of the committee
titled "Changing Cuba Policy -- In the United States National Interest."¶ U.S. officials long have defended the trade embargo on Cuba
-- initiated in 1962 -- as a way of pressuring the communist nation and its leaders, Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, the country's
current president, to move toward democracy.¶ The United States also has imposed travel restrictions on Cuba, which lies 90 miles
south of Florida.¶ In October, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution urging the United States to end its trade embargo on
Cuba -- a vote that was praised by Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque as "a clear and direct message to the next president of
the United States about the necessity to change this obsolete and cruel policy."¶ During his candidacy, President
Obama
said that he would be willing to meet with Cuba's leaders as well as the leadership of other
countries that do not have diplomatic ties with the United States.¶ A month after Obama's election,
Fidel Castro penned an essay in which he said he would be open to the idea of meeting with
the new U.S. leader.¶ But the communist leader warned that Obama "must be reminded that the carrot-and-stick theory
cannot be applied in our country."
Support for bill growing now – Florida rep
Meinhardt, Staff Writer for Tampa Bay Business Journal, 3/27
(Jaane, Mar 27, 2013, Tampa Bay Business Journal, “Florida Congresswoman Castor reveals
support for ending Cuban embargo,” http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/blog/morningedition/2013/03/florida-congresswoman-castor-reveals.html , ACCESSED June 27, 2013, RJ)
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor believes it is time to end the embargo against Cuba. The Tampa
Democrat voiced those thoughts and made history by becoming the first Florida member of
Congress to publicly support lifting the embargo when she made a speech March 22 at an
evening reception at Mise en Place for the Rapprochement With Cuba conference. “It is time for
the U.S. to modernize its relationship with Cuba, lift the embargo and end restrictions on
American’s rights to travel to Cuba,” Castor said in an exclusive statement to the Tampa Bay
Business Journal. Florida’s members of Congress, particularly those representing South Florida,
have for years been staunch, vocal supporters of the Cuban embargo. The embargo, instituted
about 51 years ago, imposes economic sanctions, restrictions on travel to the island and
prohibits — with a few exceptions — trade and business with Cuba.
Lifting the embargo has bipartisan support- A majority of Democrats,
Republicans, and independents support lifting it
Canseco, VP at Angus Reid Public Opinion, 2012
(Mario, 2/6/2006, “Most Americans Willing to Re-establish Ties with Cuba,”
Online: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44366/most-americans-willing-to-re-establish-tieswith-cuba/ FG)
Most Americans Willing to Re-establish Ties with Cuba. A majority of respondents also wants
to lift the travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting Cuba. People in the United
States are ready to change their country’s interaction with Cuba, a new Angus Reid Public
Opinion poll has found. In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,008
American adults, three-in-five respondents (62%) agree with the U.S. re-establishing
diplomatic relations with Cuba, while one-in-four (23%) disagree. Majorities of Independents
(67%), Democrats (64%) and Republicans (56%) agree with re-instituting to bilateral ties. In
March 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama eased travel restrictions to Cuba, and allowed U.S.
citizens to travel to the island for religious and cultural reasons. Most Americans (57%) believe
it is time to lift the travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting the island. Half of
Americans (51%) would lift the trade embargo with Cuba that has been in place since the
1960s, while three-in-ten (29%) disagree. Most Democrats (53%) and Independents (55%)
support ending the embargo, but Republicans are not as convinced (46%). The notion of
supporting non-governmental groups in Cuba in order to foster protests against the current
regime did not resonate with Americans. Across the country, only 35 per cent of respondents
endorse this course of action. Two-thirds of Hispanics (67%) support re-establishing diplomatic
relations with Cuba, and their views on the travel ban and the trade embargo mirror those of
the entire sample of Americans.
The embargo kills the Cuban economy, hurts the people and there is
widespread American support to revoke it.
Trani, University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University,
2013
[Eugene, 6-23-2013, Timesdispatch.com, “End the Embargo on Cuba,”
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guestcolumnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9000dffff8ce7.html EJH]
At the same time, there are many significant problems that tend to hurt the Cuban people
most at risk in economic terms. The visit of a cruise ship to a Cuban port results in that ship
being unable, no matter which flag registry the ship has, to dock in the United States for six
months. This policy really hurts the Cuban tourist economy, which could greatly improve
employment and job creation across Cuba.¶ If Cuban materials are used in the construction of
cars (more than 4% nickel for example), these cars cannot be sold in the United States, a
policy which works against the rise of an automobile-based manufacturing segment of the
Cuban economy.¶ The American embargo has had, therefore, very significant impact on
different parts of the economy in Cuba. In fact, such varied political leaders as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; George P. Shultz, former Republican secretary of state; and the late
former Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern, have called for the embargo to
be lifted and relations to be renewed between Cuba and the United States. Even polls of
Americans show a majority in favor of an end to the embargo and re-establishing of normal
relations between the countries.
Trade Off
Thinking of science as “zero sum” is empirically disproven
Ventura 5 - well‐known international authority on the development and application of science and technology for socio‐
economic development, and a former Special Science and Technology Advisor to the Prime Minister of Jamaica. He has over thirty
years of experience in research and development, technological investment and the commercial application ofresearch results.
(Arnoldo, “Cooperation is key to scientific growth in the Americas”, 1/24/2005, http://www.scidev.net/global/opinion/cooperationis-key-to-scientific-growth-in-the-ame.html, HW)
One of the great contradictions of our time is tacit acceptance of the wide gap between the
rhetoric of the importance of science and technology to socio-economic development, and the
actual commitment — and paltry political will — to move from words to actions. Perhaps the most
compelling explanation of this gap is the view that science and technology exist within a 'zero
sum paradigm', at both local and international levels. In other words, it is the belief that sharing science and
technology — today's most powerful tools for promoting competition and innovation —
diminishes the power of the giver, while providing undue leverage to the recipient. History,
however, tells a different story. All the current economic 'powerhouse' countries were once
weak, and benefited from science and technology from the more technologically advanced
nations. Initially it was Europe that acquired and shared knowledge from the old empires of
China, India and Arabia. Then the United States gained from Europe, and eventually Japan
from the Western industrialised countries. In the long run, therefore, sharing scientific and
technical knowledge benefits both the giver and receiver. Today, however, unnecessary
barriers to the flow of scientific and technical knowledge are stifling production in countries that
contain more than half of the world’s population. And one of our greatest challenges is therefore to find
ways of collaborating on building meaningful science and technology partnerships among
neighbours, thereby creating expanded and more vibrant markets, and enhanced socioeconomic progress.
Science diplomacy is not zero sum, it helps all parties involved and works as a
unique vehicle to strengthen the US’s image
Kerr 9 - professor of medicine at Oxford University and a former adviser to Tony Blair and David Cameron. (David, “Science can
bridge national divides” 6/22/2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/22/science-diplomacy-obamaadministration, HW)
And it's not bad for international relations either. Small wonder that science diplomacy –
admittedly a fluid concept still searching for a precise definition – has caught the attention of the Obama
administration as it kits itself out with the tools of soft diplomacy to repair America's
tarnished image in the Middle East and elsewhere. A number of key US advisers including Hillary Clinton's
science adviser Nina Fedoroff and Harold Varmus, the co-chair of Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology,
are known to be strong advocates. Varmus extolled the value of science in diplomacy, arguing that, “One
very healthy way
to build relationships up when they have deteriorated is to get the scientists together… we’re
used to internationalism, it’s part of the way we live.” President Obama himself gave a nod in the direction of
science diplomacy in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world earlier this month. We must, “Listen to each other... learn from each
other... seek common ground,” he said, before announcing a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority
countries to help transfer ideas to the marketplace and create jobs. With this new focus, however, come warnings about the
dangers of mixing science and diplomacy. And of course if scientists were simply to become pawns in an inter-state power play then
the whole thing collapses. Scientists should and do have more self-respect and dedication to their field of inquiry than that.
Science diplomacy works when there is shared interest and that is scientific progress – not
leveraging state power through the proxy of science. Science diplomacy need not be a zero-
sum game in which what is good for one nation state is necessarily bad for another. The
imperatives of globalisation have brought into sharp focus the need for countries to
collaborate on a multitude of issues. Granted, the stimulus for collaboration remains the
selfish national interest, but increasingly what is good for the one is good for the many. Efforts to
combat trans-border health threats such as Sars and swine flu are cases in point. Science diplomacy in the modern
world should be seen as a tool for good used by states where national interests intersect with
the goals of others. Seeing it any other way risks obscuring the very real benefits it can bring for science and for the global
community – namely the establishment of non-threatening, collaborative environments between individuals from different states
where shared scientific goals overshadow pre-existing conflicts. The Synchrotron project in Jordan is a perfect example. Scientists
can clearly benefit from science diplomacy. Approached
honestly – with an understanding that science
diplomacy necessarily needs national self-interest to be self-sustaining – it has a lot to offer.
For governments, it is admittedly more difficult to measure the benefits in any rigorous scientific way. But it is hard to see how any
government that offered tangible health improvement, for example, to a nation with whom it wished to develop stronger diplomatic
links would not gain a deeper relationship with its people. No wonder Obama is keen to use science to prise open the doors of
countries that are minded to slam them shut in his face. America's
reputation may be in the pits, but that of its
scientists is not. So science diplomacy has enormous potential as a political framework though it
will not by itself help negotiate peace treaties, draw up boundaries between warring states or solve disputes over scarce global
resources. Nor should it try. But
delivered thoughtfully and rigorously, science diplomacy can open
doors between peoples in conflict, keep them open when relationships are tough, and help
unlock the potential of our global, collective body of knowledge.
U.S. Cuba bilateral cooperation is not zero sum—it is the prerequisite to
opening up a greater awareness of the region and solving primary problems
Hearn’9, June 2009,(Dr. Adrian H. Hearn is a research fellow at the School of Social and
Political Sciences, the University of Sydney. He has conducted research in Cuba (three years) and
China (ten months), and is currently undertaking a study of Chinese engagement with Latin
America. He is author of Cuba: Religion, Social Capital, and Development (Duke University Press
2008), China and Latin America: The Social Foundations of a Global Alliance (Duke University
Press, forthcoming) and editor of Cultura, Tradición, y Comunidad: Perspectivas sobre el
Desarrollo y Participación en Cuba (Imagen Contemporánea and UNESCO Center for Human
Development 2008 http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/cuba-china-hearn.pdf JP)
It is generally acknowledged that the U.S. embargo on Cuba has not achieved
its economic or political goals. Even Cuban dissidents received the 2006 report of the Commission for a Free
Cuba with skepticism, criticizing it for “presuming what a Cuban transition must be”, and affirming that “only we Cubans, of
our own volition...can decide issues of such singular importance” (quoted in Sullivan 2009:20).
A greater
awareness of local socio-political dynamics in Cuba is sorely needed, and
would be achieved by closer contact both at the interpersonal level, a prospect
favored by 55.2 percent of Cuban Americans (FIU 2007), and through more
interactive and coordinated commercial relations. Since 2002 the Unites States has been Cuba’s
largest food supplier, and in the wake of hurricanes Gustav and Ike in September 2008, the Cuban government expressed its
readiness for deeper trade relations (Sullivan 2009:24). Rather
than dismiss this prospect on
political grounds, economic openings and industrial coordination could be
used to promote democratic outcomes. As the Inter-American Dialogue has concluded, “a
democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a
precondition” (IAD 2009:10). A policy outlook that engages Cuba as a stakeholder in
the prevailing world system would advance negotiations and resolutions on
long-contended political disputes. Encouraging rather than impeding Cuba’s
participation in the Organization of American States and other multilateral
institutions would be welcomed in the region (IAD 2009:10), and would encourage
much-needed multilateral dialogue on human rights, transparency, and
sovereignty. This would also build international familiarity with the Cuban
government’s industrial partnerships with China, economic objectives, and
methods of calculating trade figures, which include social services not
included in standard U.N. measures of economic output. Furthermore, multilateral
engagement would widen opportunities for cultural exchange, academic forums, and NGO access, which together would build
a more realistic picture of local priorities, needs, and opportunities for building community welfare capacities. This process, in
Marifeli Pé rez-Stable’s terms, would enable Havana and Washington “to formulate a ‘new beginning’ with words that do not
prune the dialogue before it can blossom” (2009; also see Colvin 2008:30-31).
Science Diplomacy solves for an array of both domestic and international
challenges—makes it not zero sum
Carnahan’12 (Russ Carnahan represented Missouri’s Third Congressional District
from 2005-2013 and served on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs,
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Veterans’ Affairs
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/authors/russ-carnahan. JP)
As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and a former member of the House Committee on Science, I believe
that the
coordination of international science and technology (S&T) diplomacy
is paramount to U.S. interests. The United States has the potential to build
more positive relationships with other countries through science. Our country
can better advance U.S. national security and economic interests by helping
build technological capacities in other nations and working with international
partners to solve global challenges. This is why I have worked in a bipartisan manner to lead the
introduction of four bills at the intersection of science and diplomacy: the International Science and Technology Cooperation
Act; the Global Conservation Act; the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act; and the
Startup Act 2.0. International challenges are just that: global in their scope and in their solutions. The
United States
cannot solve multifaceted, multinational problems in scientific or diplomatic
isolation. Forging networks with scientists and institutions abroad helps the
United States and its partners find technical solutions to key global challenges.
In an era where international skepticism about U.S. foreign policy abounds, civil society—including scientists and
engineers—plays a critical role in reinforcing U.S. foreign policy priorities via
engagement with its counterparts abroad. While many federal departments and agencies work with
international counterparts on S&T projects and issues, a coherent interagency strategy does not exist. In addition to the
Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which both work regularly with international entities,
any federal agency that does its own research or funds academic research engages in international S&T cooperation. This
includes the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce, and Health and Human Services as well as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Further, some of the explicitly research-oriented agencies have offices or programs dedicated to international science,
including the NSF, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Agriculture. With so many diverse—and oftentimes
divergent—agencies involved in international S&T, it
is critical that the United States develop a
mechanism to set federal priorities and achieve interagency coordination. This
ensures the United States is deriving maximum scientific and diplomatic
benefit from such cooperation and in the most efficient manner: yielding the
greatest bang for the taxpayer buck. That is why, along with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the chair
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am serving as the lead sponsor of the International Science and Technology
Cooperation Act. The legislation establishes a body under the National Science and Technology Council at the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy that will identify and coordinate the U.S. interagency strategy for international S&T
cooperation. Such a strategy will strengthen the U.S. S&T enterprise, improve economic and national security, support U.S.
foreign policy goals, and ensure efficient use of federal resources. The
bipartisan Global Conservation
Act, which I am leading with Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) who is my colleague
on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, uses a comprehensive and cost-
effective International Conservation Strategy to better coordinate U.S.
programs that work to prevent the loss of our world’s natural systems. The
Strategy will align key, ongoing U.S. and international conservation efforts,
strengthening the United States’ ability to advance and compete for economic
development opportunities and improve stability and security both
domestically and abroad. Specifically, this legislation will help to limit environmental destruction in areas
vulnerable to conflict and instability; improve identification and protection of the most ecologically and economically
significant natural areas and resources outside our borders; and address illegal and unregulated hunting, angling, logging, and
wildlife trafficking in key regions, while maintaining properly managed wildlife for recreation and local use. The
benefits of helping to preserve critical ecosystems, which comprise the
fundamental building blocks of the world economy, national and regional
security, and human health, are clear and indisputable.
Science Diplomacy is not zero sum—it is the platform for countries looking for
better relationships
Chan’12, January 2012, (Rachel Chan is a PDiN Contributing Researcher for CPD, helping to aggregate public diplomacy news
stories on a daily basis. A first-year Master of Public Diplomacy student from Singapore, she has a special interest in the cultural
diplomacy and nation branding of Asia. Rachel majored in communication studies and minored in English Literature at Nanyang
Technological University. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/media_monitor_reports_detail/science_diplomacy/
JP)
Technological exchange is an important platform for countries looking to create better
connections with the publics of other nations, and to establish and strengthen relationships.
Technological exchanges can be particularly effective between developed and developing
nations. With multiple scientific challenges like sustainability, pandemics, climate change,
environmental disasters and overpopulation faced by the world today, technological
exchanges are effective platforms for states and scientists to cooperate and share knowledge,
expertise and resources. In turn, this can promote economic and social progress, and contribute
to peace and security. Such exchanges can also be a means for developed countries to boost
their soft power and international image with developing nations. This form of exchange
diplomacy is enhanced by the fact that science diplomacy as a whole is better funded than
cultural diplomacy, especially since it has the capacity to deliver tangible results in a shorter
period of time. Next, technological exchange can also take place in the traditional sense of the word, where
delegations travel to each other’s countries to share ideas on science, innovation and
technology. The U.S. has several such exchanges with India, with the government playing a key role in setting the stage for
businesses, scientists, laboratories and institutions in both countries to collaborate with each other. These strategic public-private
exchanges will not only develop India’s infrastructure and research capabilities, they offer a possible route for countering China’s
rise by allying the United States with one of Beijing’s main rivals. Conferences are another form of technological exchange. The
France-Israel Foundation, established in 2005, has brought together scientists from both countries at a yearly conference, with the
objectives of shaping the respective images of France and Israel and cultivating deeper ties in science, as well as culture, economy
and the media. The scientists are funded by the European Research Council, an independent organization which funds research in
the European Union. This
example also further attests to the role that multilateral institutions can
play as instruments of soft power.
Country Specific
Brazil
Numerous alt causes to US – Brazil relations, one of which is the Cuban
embargo
Einaudi 11 - U.S. career diplomat. He assumed the post of Acting Secretary General of the Organization of American States in
October 2004 upon the resignation of Secretary General Miguel Ángel Rodríguez. (Luigi, “Brazil and the United States: The Need for
Strategic Engagement” March 2011, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/SF%20266%20Einaudi.pdf, HW)
As much as both countries need it, however, improved cooperation may require them to make
changes for which they are not yet ready. Depending somewhat on their politics, many
Brazilians will be dubious about cooperation with the United States as long as it continues to
massively subsidize and protect key agricultural products, maintains an embargo on Cuba, is
thought by important political groups to have ambitions on the Amazon or troops in South
America, or fails to endorse Brazil’s UN Security Council ambitions. Similarly, some in the United
States will question working closely with a Brazil that they see as enjoying the luxuries of the irresponsible
until it accepts greater responsibility on nuclear nonproliferation (including more UN monitoring of its
facilities), distances itself from Iran, is more present on democracy and human rights issues (in the
Middle East, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela), is more active on these issues at the UN and OAS, and generally treats the
United States better in its diplomacy than it has often done recently.
Cuba already has scientific cooperation w/ Brazil; policies limiting engagement
w/ the US are looked down on by Latin America
Clegg 8 - the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences,
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine. (Michael, “U.S.-Cuban Scientific
Relations”, 10/17/8, http://penultimosdias.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/345.pdf, HW)
Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal
antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation
of biodiversity. Cuban
scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries,
including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of
cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—openness, shared
communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could
encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and
political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources,
scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council
on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is
no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba,
including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to
undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other
Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that
permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor
increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support
progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human wellbeing. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us
celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.
India
India supports the repeal of the embargo
MEA 13 – India’s ministry of external affairs. (MEA, “India – Cuba Relations”, February 2013,
http://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Cuba.pdf, HW)
Indo-Cuba relations have been traditionally warm and friendly. India was amongst the first countries to
extend recognition to Cuba after the 1959 Revolution. Both countries have maintained close contacts with
each other in various international forums, such as the UN, NAM, WTO, etc. Both have supported each
other's candidature to various UN bodies. India has been supporting Cuba against US
supported resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council and also consistently voted in favour of
Cuban sponsored resolutions in the UN General Assembly calling for lifting of US sanctions
against Cuba. India has also been consistently supporting Cuba for removal of its name from the black list of Financial Action
Task Force (FATF).
India wants the US to get rid of the embargo
UN 11 – United Nations. (UN, “India calls for end to US embargo against Cuba”, 10/11/11,
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-calls-for-end-to-us-embargo-against-cuba/1/157563.html, HW)
India on Wednesday called for an immediate end to the nearly half-century old US embargo
against Cuba, saying it has undermined development of the country and affected the
economic prosperity of the Cuban people. "On the one hand we, the global community, make tall promises on
Millennium Development Goals, of striving for human dignity and achieving equitable growth, but when it comes to action, we do
the exact opposite," Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahamed said in the UN. He
said India supports the
resolution moved by Cuba and joins other nations in calling for an immediate end to the
economic, commercial and financial embargo against Havana. Terming as "unfortunate" the
continued US embargo on Cuba, Ahamed said India sees this as a "violation of the world
opinion, and an act that severely undermines multilateralism and the credibility of the United
Nations itself." The UN General Assembly also renewed its call for the 20th consecutive year for an end to the embargo. In a
resolution adopted by 186 votes in favour to two against (Israel and the US), the Assembly reiterated its call to all States to refrain
from applying laws and measures not conforming with their obligations to reaffirm freedom of trade. Introducing the text, Cuban
Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said the US has never hidden the fact that the objective of the embargo which he said has
caused more than USD 975 billion in damage to the Cuban people is to overthrow his country’s government. "What the US
Government wants to see changed will not change," Parrilla said, adding that the Cuban Government will continue to be "the
government of the people, by the people and for the people." "Our elections shall not be auction sales. There shall not be USD 4
billion electoral campaigns nor a parliament supported by 13 per cent of voters," he added. Ahamed said the Cuban people have
suffered immensely due to the US embargo, which has severely undermined the progress and development of the country. "The
embargo, which perhaps has no parallel in history, is a transgression of the right of a
sovereign state to development and to enjoy freedom of trade, economy and navigation,"
Ahamed said. He said the embargo has denied a life of respect and basic standard to the
people of Cuba, making a call that "action must speak louder than words." The global economic
slowdown coupled with spiraling food and energy prices has made matters worse for the Cuban population.
China
China wants an end to the embargo—loss of engagement makes Cuba not
involved to solve global challenges
Xinhua’10, June/2010, (China Daily was established in June 1981 and has the widest print
circulation of any English-language newspaper in the country (over 500,000 copies per issue, of
which a third are abroad). The editorial office is in the Chaoyang District of Beijing, and the
newspaper has branch offices in most major cities of China as well as several major foreign cities
including New York City, Washington, D.C., London and Kathmandu.[1] The paper is published
by satellite in the United States, Hong Kong, and Europe.[2][3]
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-10/27/content_11461619.htm).JP
UNITED NATIONS - China on Tuesday urged the United States to terminate as soon as possible
its economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. Wang Min, China's deputy
permanent representative to the United Nations, made the appeal as he spoke at a UN General
Assembly plenary meeting. Wang said the General Assembly has adopted resolutions by an
overwhelming majority for eighteen consecutive years on the necessity of ending the US
embargo against Cuba which has been imposed since 1961. "Regrettably, however, those
resolutions have not been effectively implemented over the years, and the economic,
commercial and financial embargo against Cuba imposed by the country concerned is yet to
be lifted," he said. A UN report shows that the "economic embargo against Cuba over the past
year remained unchanged in substance, thus continuing to inflict enormous economic and
financial losses on Cuba," he said. "The international community is faced with multiple serious
challenges of the financial, food and energy crises as well as climate change, which make the
embargo and sanctions against Cuba all the more unreasonable." "The Chinese government
urges the country concerned to terminate as soon as possible economic, commercial and
financial embargo against Cuba," said the ambassador.
China encourages increased S&T advances with Latin America
Hurtado’11 August/2011, (Maria Elena Hurtado is a writer for SciDev.Net (the Science and
Development Network) is a not-for-profit organisation the world’s leading source of reliable and
authoritative news, views and analysis on information about science and technology for global
development. They primarily engage with development professionals, policymakers,
researchers, the media and the informed public. .[1] The organisation was founded in 2001[2] in
response to the significant gap in scientific knowledge between rich and poor countries and with
the understanding that “those who stand to benefit the most from modern science and
technology are also those with the least access to information about it.[3]" SciDev.Net seeks to
redress this imbalance via its free-to-access website, regional networks and specialist
workshops.)JP
[SANTIAGO] Chile, Colombia and Ecuador have strengthened their science and technology
(S&T) collaboration with China by signing cooperation agreements over the last two weeks. The
agreements highlight China's growing interest in collaboration with Latin American countries
at a similar stage of development to itself. They will involve investment in basic research in
different fields. They were signed during visits to the three countries by a 40-strong Chinese
delegation headed by China's secretary of state, Liu Yandong, and including vice minister of
S&T, Cao Jianlin. The Chilean and Colombian agreements will focus on joint projects between
research centres, universities and industry, including placements in China for postgraduate
students. Priority areas in both agreements include agriculture, information and communication
technologies, and renewable energies, as well as anti-seismic engineering in Chile. "Most
Chilean buildings resisted February's very strong earthquake so China is interested in our antiseismic technology. [And] we want to learn about their earthquake monitoring network before
we set ours in place," María Teresa Ramírez, director of the international relations department
at Chile's National Commission on Science and Technology (CONICYT), told SciDev.Net. She
added that the agreement is part of a plan to turn Chile into the regional platform from which
Latin America can develop its relations with the Asia-Pacific region. It also "improves our
ability to solve common problems with other Latin American countries in areas such as the
environment, education and renewable energy," added Ramírez. As part of the agreements
China has offered Chilean universities new equipment worth around US$750,000 to replace
instruments destroyed by the earthquake. It also gave the Colombian government US$200,000
to repair infrastructure damaged by torrential rains in November. During the signing ceremony
in Chile, Liu said that China wants to provide substantial support to basic scientific research, and
that it wants to find ways to increase the energy efficiency of Latin American firms. The China–
Ecuador agreement focuses on cooperation in agricultural research, technology and training as
well as developments in biotechnology aimed at family agriculture, which makes up 85 per cent
of the country's farming land. China has also donated US$2.9 million dollars to Ecuador for use
in any science-related field. Osvaldo Rosales, head of the International Commerce and
Integration Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, told
SciDev.Net: "The last decade saw a dramatic increase in Chinese–Latin American commerce and
Chinese investment in our region. China intends to become a technological power by 2015 so it
is looking for know-how in our region by signing bilateral agreements. "Latin America should
exploit this interest further by entering into regional S&T agreements that, by harnessing
synergies, would make what we have to offer more attractive for China," he added. Four Latin
American countries — Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba — already have joint commissions on
S&T cooperation with China, charged with drafting framework agreements, monitoring the
implementation of specific accords and reviewing areas of cooperation.
Russia
Russia engages through science cooperation with Cuba
Markey’8, Nov./2008, (Patrick Markey is "Patrick Markey is the Senior Andean Correspondent
for Reuters, based in Bogota, Colombia. For the last nine years he has covered and helped
manage coverage across the Andean region, including Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. He has
also reported on top stories across Latin America, including more recently the Honduras coup
and Haiti's earthquake. “He is currently on the board of directors of the Dactyl Foundation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/27/us-cuba-russia-idUSTRE4AQ5RP20081127).JP
Once a symbol of Soviet power in Latin America and the Caribbean, the building where
Russian spies once eavesdropped on the United States is now an information university
teaching Cubans computer science. Medvedev is the first Russian leader to travel to Cuba
since 2000 as Moscow flexes its muscles in Latin America by signing trade, military and energy
deals in Washington's traditional sphere of influence. Russia is likely to commit to rebuilding
its alliance with Cuba, abandoned after the Soviet days. Russian oil companies want to drill
offshore, vehicle makers are looking to boost exports and the military has talked about air
defense cooperation with Havana. Medvedev's visit to Cuba comes as U.S.-Russian ties have
frayed over the Georgia war and Washington's missile defense plans in Europe. But Cuba will
likely take a pragmatic approach to renewing ties with Moscow if U.S. President-elect Barack
Obama follows through on his offers to roll back some restrictions on the island, analysts say.
"Even with Russia's differences with the United States, they are not interested in worsening
relations," said Vadin Teperman at the Latin American Institute of the Russian Academy of
Sciences. "Cuba is expecting some positive changes from Obama, made during his campaign."
EYE ON TRADE Medvedev's Cuba visit comes on the heels of a trip by Chinese President Hu
Jintao, who put off some of Cuba's debt payments and agreed to cooperation deals to
strengthen ties between the two communist nations. The Kremlin has said Medvedev's tour is
mainly about trade. Russia is looking to expand its presence in Latin America and new markets
as a way to help ward off the impact of the global economic crisis battering world oil prices.
Russia has also sent warships to conduct naval exercises in the Caribbean with OPEC-member
Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez is a strong ally of Cuba and a persistent adversary of
the United States. Cuban President Raul Castro may visit Russia next year and Moscow has
called for Washington to lift the economic embargo on the Caribbean island imposed in 1962
when Castro's brother, Fidel Castro, was in power. Moscow was Havana's main benefactor
during the Cold War but the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 battered Cuba's economy. Ties
soured further after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited in late 2000 and closed down the
Lourdes base just months later. "Cuba is involved in a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at
diversifying its portfolio on the diplomatic and commercial front," said Julia Sweig at the
Council on Foreign Relations. "This is pure pragmatism."
Russia works with Cuba with building Space diplomacy—building better
relations and peace
RBTH 2/18 (Russia Beyond the Headlines (RBTH) is a branch of Russian state-owned newspaper
Rossiyskaya Gazeta which publishes a number of foreign-language newspaper supplements and
maintains the RBTH news website. The supplements are included in international newspapers in
an effort to cultivate a positive view of Russia's political and economic environment abroad.
http://rbth.ru/news/2013/02/18/russia_cuba_to_work_together_on_space_exploration_22981
.html) JP
The Russian government will sign an agreement with Cuba on cooperation in space
exploration for peaceful purposes, the Russian Cabinet of Ministers said in a report posted on
its website. The agreement between the Russian and Cuban governments is aimed at
developing mutually profitable cooperation between the two countries in the sphere of space
telecommunication technologies, satellite navigation, remote sensing of Earth, space medicine
and biology, and the training of the Cuban staff."The agreement is a framework one,
determines the main conditions of Russian-Cuban interaction in the sphere of joint space
activities, and governs issues relating to intellectual property protection, export control,
preferential movement of specific categories of special-purpose goods," the report says.
Russia and Cuba forming bilateral partnership—scientific and environmental
advances for Cuba key to cooperation
Lyakhov 5/19, May 19, 2013(Aleksei Lyakhov is a writer for WordPress is a free and open source
blogging tool and a content management system (CMS) based on PHP and MySQL which runs on
a Web hosting service.[5] Features include a plug-in architecture and a template system.
WordPress is used by over 14.7% of Alexa Internet's "top 1 million" websites,[when?] and as of
August 2011 manages 22% of all new websites.[6] WordPress is currently the most popular
blogging system in use on the Web,[7][8] powering over 60 million websites worldwide.[9
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/tag/havana/)JP
During her official visit to Cuba, Valentina Matviyenko, chairman of the RF Federation Council,
met with Cuban President Raúl Modesto Castro Ruz and Juan Esteban Lazo Hernández, the
President of the Cuban National Assembly of the People’s Power, and said that relations
between Russia and Cuba are having a renaissance. Matviyenko praised the expansion of
bilateral partnership , trade, economic, scientific , and humanitarian cooperation between
the countries. She told reporters on the flight back to Moscow, “Our delegation came to Havana
to upgrade and boost parliamentary cooperation between our two countries. We discussed a
number of issues during a two-hour talk, including Fidel Castro’s health. The Comandante is
feeling OK; he’s following a strict régime under tight medical supervision”. Matviyenko also said
that apart from being an important strategic partner, Cuba’s also a good and reliable friend,
noting, “Our countries have special bonds of fraternity and mutual respect; Russia has very
warm and sincere feelings for Cubans. We love our Cuban friends and are ready for
cooperation. Havana and Moscow became close allies under Fidel Castro… 2013 marks 50 years
since his first visit to the USSR… Moscow and some other Russian cities noted the event. Now,
bilateral cooperation is on the rise, mainly focused on trade and economy. Although last year’s
trade turnover accounted for only some 220 million dollars (6.93 billion Roubles. 172 million
Euros. 145 million UK Pounds), there’s a great potential for expansion”. The streets of Havana
have many signs of long-lasting friendship, such as Soviet-made cars. Despite Cuba’s turn to
foreign investors, the USA doesn’t want to lift its sanctions, so, Havana eyes working with
Russia. Lazo, the president of the Cuban National Assembly of the People’s Power, spoke
about the prospects of bilateral energy cooperation, thinking that Russia could help in
constructing new units and supplying equipment for Cuban power plants built with Soviet aid.
Havana also expects Moscow’s help in exploring oil in its Gulf of Mexico wells and further
construction of refineries. Russian investment in Cuba’s oil sector is important; at present, only
Zarubezhneft does so, but other Russian companies shall also join in. Cuba also eyes
cooperation with Russia in nickel production, tourism, and agriculture as well as seeking help
to refurbish and upgrade the Mariel and Santa Cruz del Norte power plants. Russia and Cuba
are long-term partners. For instance, Cubana de Aviación uses Russian Tupolev Tu-204 planes.
Cuba has imported some worth 12 million USD (378 million Roubles. 9.4 million Euros. 7.9
million UK Pounds) worth of power plant equipment from Russia in the last three years and has
recently resumed purchase of Russian tractors. Russian tourists are also contributing to Cuba’s
economic revival… some 90,000 holidaymakers from Russia visited the Island of Freedom last
year.
Russia urges Obama to lift the embargo on Cuba
GR (Global Research)’8, November 2008, (Global Research GE Global Research is the research
and development division of General Electric.[1] GE Global Research's primary facility is located
in Niskayuna, New York. The Advanced Manufacturing and Software Technology Center (AMSTC)
is a satellite facility located in Van Buren, Michigan.[2] Outside the USA GE Global Research
maintains three equally significant laboratories located in Bangalore (India), Shanghai (China),
Munich (Germany), and San Ramon (California). A fifth center of GE Global Research is to be set
up at Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and is expected to start operations in 2011.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-urges-obama-to-lift-cuba-embargo-respect-worldopinion/10910)JP
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to rethink
the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba, which has been in place for nearly half a century.
Lavrov said after talks in Moscow today with his Cuban counterpart Felipe Perez Roque that
the ``overwhelming majority'' of countries, including Russia, opposed the U.S. trade embargo
and had voted against it in the United Nations General Assembly. The U.S. imposed a trade
embargo against Cuba in 1962 to put pressure on its Communist government, which rose to
power in a 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro, who ceded power to his brother in February. In
2000, U.S. lawmakers eased the rules to allow the export of agricultural and medical goods to
Cuba. Shipments increased 31 percent last year to $447 million. The UN General Assembly on
Oct. 29 voted for the 17th consecutive year in favor of a resolution that calls on the U.S. to lift
the embargo. Three countries -- the U.S., Israel and Palau -- opposed the resolution, while 185
countries voted in favor and two, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands,
abstained. Obama has promised to review U.S. policy toward Cuba. While this is a U.S. decision,
Russia hopes that Obama will take into account ``the voice of the international community,''
Lavrov said in comments broadcast on state television. Russia is reviving its influence in Latin
America, lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and challenging the U.S. in its backyard. It
has developed friendly ties with Venezuela, a U.S. opponent, and is also rebuilding relations
with its Soviet-era ally Cuba. Russia may lend Cuba as much as $335 million to spend on
Russian goods and services, RIA Novosti reported on Nov. 6. Cuba may use funds provided
under the state loan to cover as much as 90 percent of a contract, with a 10 percent advance
paid, the state-run news service said, citing a government order dated Nov. 1.
Spending
Europe proves – biotechnology is a great investment
Hogan 7/2/13 – Writer for “The New European Economy”. (Fergal, “Biotech Investment: Returns, Risks and Research”,
http://www.neweuropeaneconomy.com/home-mainmenu-51/biotech/529-biotech-investment-returns-risks-and-research, HW)
Great fortunes have been made by investors who have made the right biotech deal. Early
shareholders of such companies as Amgen and Biogen have enjoyed huge profits as their investments
have skyrocketed over the years. It’s not too late to join the party though, as there are plenty of exciting and promising
biotech start-ups out there. Biotech start-ups with products ready for market can experience massive
growth overnight or sell for huge profits to a larger firm. According to the Association of
Investment Companies, biotechnology and healthcare emerged as the best performing
investment sector of 2012. Figures published by the trade body showed investment trusts in
the sector were up an average of 26% over the 12 months to the end of November 2012. The
sector is also home to the best performing individual trust of the last year - Biotech Growth. The trust, which is managed at
healthcare-dedicated investment firm OrbiMed Capital, is up 52% over the last 12 months. In
a recent article, Forbes
magazine recommended investing in established biotech company Gilead Sciences. Gilead is a
research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet
medical need. It has revolutionised antiviral treatments for HIV and continues to transform medicine for the lethal disease.
Founded in 1987 in California, Gilead has a rapidly expanding product portfolio, a growing
pipeline of investigational drugs and approximately 5,000 employees in offices across four
continents. It was a big winner for investors in 2012, with shares surging by 75%. Many startups rely on funding from private investors that have an interest in biotech and believe in the
product. European Partnering and Investment Conference (EPIC) will be showcasing the best of UK and European biotech firms
on June 6, 2013. Some 50 to 60 European and UK biotech companies will be presenting and are looking for partners, investment or
services. The audience will comprise 250 - 300 delegates from the pharma, biotech, investor and service sectors. Industry keynotes
will set the tone for the day and partnering will take place all day as well as informal networking. Large
and small investors
are paying increasing attention to biotech. The Wellcome Trust, the world’s second-largest biomedical charity,
recently started an investment unit with £200 million of initial capital to back biotech start-ups. Wellcome’s new Syncona unit will
support new businesses in the medical-device, therapeutics, diagnostics and IT industries. Its
long-term investments will
amount to one million pounds to 20 million pounds each. Syncona CEO Martin Murphy says that the unit
expects to play a part in building successful businesses based upon innovation within the life science and healthcare industry.
Cuba is a great market for foreign investment
Feinberg 12 - professor of international political economy at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific
Studies, University of California, Berkeley. (Richard, “The New Cuban Economy What Roles for Foreign Investment?”,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/12/cuba%20economy%20feinberg/cuba%20economy%20feinberg
%209.pdf, HW)
What drives the international investment decisions of firms? The
literature devoted to explaining the over $1
trillion in annual worldwide equity investment flows differentiates among three major
categories of investments: resource-seeking investments, efficiency-seeking investments, and
market-seeking investments . All three categories are, or could be, relevant to Cuba: • Cuba’s
natural resources include its inviting tropical climate, world-class vacation destinations, deepwater ports, valuable minerals (nickel, cobalt, and possibly petroleum), nontraditional energy sources (sun,
wind, and waves), and arable soils. • Efficiency-seeking investments are often attracted by relatively
low-cost competitive wages. Cuba could score in two categories: highly-educated
professionals with relatively low wages and low-wage workers with relatively good high
school education. Still, Cuba would first have to overhaul its tax and currency policies that elevate labor costs . • The
Cuban domestic market is modest in size but still interesting to some firms, including those
multinationals compulsively seeking a presence in every market worldwide . For countries located in
the Caribbean Basin, the relevant export market is first and foremost the United States—not yet an option for firms operating in
Cuba . Once
U .S . sanctions are lifted some multinationals may use Cuba as a regional hub,
serving the neighboring islands as well as the southeast United States . Increasingly, literature on FDI
focuses on what might be called the demand side: public policies of the receiving countries that affect the decisions of investors .
Without negating the above cited factors driving investment supply, governments should recognize that public policies “can tip the
balance in favor of one country over another if all other factors are equal .” 18 In Investing Across Borders, the World Bank presents
cross-country indicators analyzing practices, laws, and regulations affecting FDI in 87 economies . 19 While
Cuba (which is
not a member of the World Bank) is not included, the results of this survey are instructive;
they indicate just how much of an outlier Cuba has become with regard to the treatment of
foreign investment.
The embargo costs the US government hundreds of millions of dollars and hurts
the economy billions of dollars each year
Daniel Hanson et. all, 2013, economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, “It's
Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba” AP
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senselessembargo-of-cuba/
Despite this progress, the U.S. spends massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods
out of the United States. At least 10 different agencies are responsible for enforcing different
provisions of the embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government
devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to administering
the embargo each year. At the Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are
seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs inspections than are
visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though
the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government resources could be better
spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather
than the search for contraband cigars and rum. Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to
the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the
transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real
reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1
percent.
Politicization
The state is key for science and science diplomacy funding
National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of
the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public
opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International
Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” [pg.28]—2012
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW)
Hernan Chaimovich also suggested that science diplomacy is done by the state, and while science can be a
tool for diplomacy, it is part of a government’s policy. According to him, the problem we are facing today is
the relationship between a government’s policy and the agencies that are effectively engaged with scientific cooperation, including
the private sector. As an example, he reffered to the stagnant budget of NSF’s international division over the past few years, which
appears to be mainly due to policy issues.
Several participants underlined the importance of funding.
Daniel Goroff of the Sloan Foundation stated that science and scientific knowledge are a
public good, which by definition is nonexcludable and nonrival, meaning that no one can be excluded from it , and its
“consumption” by one individual does not reduce its availability to another individual. Most people expect it to be
free, but in fact, it does have a cost. Therefore, it takes collective will and organization to
make science happen.
Nanotech
Turn – the plan is key to the responsible development of nanotech – guidance
and regulations
Dhawan and Sharma 11
[Alok Dhawan is principal scientist and Vyom Sharma is a senior research fellow at the
Nanomaterial Toxicology Group, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, India.,
August 25, 2011, “Address risk of nanotech toxicity,”
http://www.scidev.net/global/technology/opinion/address-risk-of-nanotech-toxicity-1.html]
WD
Developing countries forging ahead with nanotechnology need regulation and research into
local risk patterns, say Alok Dhawan and Vyom Sharma. Nanotechnology, the science of
manipulating tiny particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter, has found many applications
in consumer products, biomedical devices, drug delivery agents and the industrial sector. In the
consumer sector alone, more than 30 countries are manufacturing some 1,300 nanotech-based
products, including textiles, food packaging, cosmetics, luggage, children's toys, floor cleaners
and wound dressings. The number of such products has increased five-fold in the last five years.
But this rapid growth has also raised concerns about the potential for adverse effects on
human health and the environment. Although research on harm remains inconclusive,
developing countries that embrace nanotechnology should not overlook possible risks and
must regulate products that contain nanoparticles. Special properties, possible harm Their
small size gives nanoparticles some unusual physical properties, as they have a larger ratio of
surface area to volume than bigger particles. This can also make them biologically more active.
For example, when gold, usually an inert material, is converted to a nano-form, it acts as a
catalyst for chemical reactions owing to high surface reactivity. This suggests that nanoparticles
may interact differently with biological systems, compared with larger particles, and could reach
further into the body. People can be exposed to nanoparticles either directly, such as through
nano-based drugs and topically applied cosmetics or sunscreens, or indirectly, for example by
inhalation during synthesis of nanoparticles. A number of studies have documented in vitro and
in vivo toxicity of exposure to nanoparticles. Evidence suggests they can induce DNA damage,
reactive oxygen species, damage to cellular organelles and cell death. And a study published in
the European Respiratory Journal in 2009 claimed that seven Chinese workers developed severe
lung damage after inhaling polyacrylate nanoparticles produced in their printing factory — the
first time that a link was made between exposure to nanoparticles and human illness. [1] Risk on
the agenda… There is currently no mandatory consumer labelling of nanomaterials as
potentially hazardous in any country. But governments and scientific bodies in the developed
world — including the Royal Society, United Kingdom, and the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) — are taking note of the potential hazards and have set up committees to
formulate risk assessment guidelines. For example, under existing regulations, the EPA is
proposing rules requiring those that manufacture, import or process two chemical substances
— multi-walled and single-walled carbon nanotubes — to submit a notice with information that
would help it monitor health or environmental risks. Similarly, washing machines using silver
nanoparticles at the end of the wash cycle are being evaluated by the US government for their
environmental safety. In 2005, concerns about toxic effects on microbe populations prompted
the temporary withdrawal of a washing machine using silver nanoparticles in Sweden. The US
EPA has already decided to regulate products containing silver nanoparticles, which are used
widely in consumer products and have anti-bacterial properties. …while developing countries
lack guidance But developing countries still lack awareness of the potential hazards of nanobased consumer products, and only a few guidance documents are available in the public
domain. A company in India already claims to be the world's largest manufacturer of nanotechbased fabrics. Many other companies that synthesise nanoparticles — for use in cosmetics, for
example, or water filtration devices — are emerging in countries such as China and India.
Framing regulations and guidelines for the synthesis, use and disposal of nanomaterials is of
great importance for the responsible development of nanotechnology in developing nations.
International organisations and developed nations can assist them by sharing scientific data
and technologies for assessing environmental and health safety. And to control occupational
exposures, the regulatory framework should include mandatory documentation of the
nanomaterials developed and personnel involved, and training workers to take precautions.
Our institute, the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, has recently published
guidance on the safe handling of nanomaterials in research laboratories, a step in the right
direction. [2] Implications, not just applications But the vast majority of government funding in
developing nations is spent on research into the applications, rather than the implications, of
nanotechnology. For example, out of more than 200 research projects funded during 2001–10
by the Department of Science and Technology in India under its flagship Nano Mission
programme, only one was directly related to nanoparticle toxicity studies (and was awarded to
our institute). As a result, scientists may fail to identify any impacts of nanotechnology that are
specific to populations or the use of a product in poor countries — patterns of environmental
distribution and exposure could be different in developing nations. Current research on
nanotoxicity does not take into account how different local environments and populations can
influence risk. People in developing countries may be more prone to adverse effects of
nanoparticles because of underlying health conditions and malnutrition. Moreover, genetic
susceptibility to toxic effects varies in diverse ethnic groups and geographical areas. The
scientific community needs to identify these information gaps before developing regulations
and standard methodologies for nanotoxicity assessment.
Global nanotech inevitable – trends prove
Delemarle et al 9
[Aurelie, post-doctoral research fellow at LATTS working on the conditions of emergence of
markets for nanosciences and technology based innovations, Bernard Kahane, Lionel Villard,
Philippe Laredo, “Geography of Knowledge Production in Nanotechnologies: A Flat World with
Many Hills and Mountains,” Nanotechnology Law & Business 6 Nanotech. L. & Bus. (2009)] WD
1. Introduction Research on nanoscale phenomena is increasing everywhere. Programs in
nanosciences are flourishing in almost every country of the world. Publications in fields
related to nanotechnologies have been increasing by 12% per year from 1998 to 2006.
Nanotechnology is becoming the generic technology of the 21st century. Considerable
resources are being invested, especially public resources. In 2007 an estimated $1,780 million
was spent in the United States, $975 million in Japan, $563 million in Germany, and $222
million in South Korea. The true landscape of the continental, national and sub-national output
of these investments requires considering more than just total investment.
Turn – fast nanotech good – US guidance is key
Forrest 89
[David, President of the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing and a Senior Fellow at the
Foresight Nanotech Institute, member of the Working Group for the International Technology
Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems, and of the Technical Advisory Group to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) on the ISO Technical Committee on Nanotechnology
(TC/229), March 23, 1989, “Regulating Nanotechnology Development,”
http://www.foresight.org/nano/Forrest1989.html] WD
If we tried to block or slow the development of nanotechnology in the United States, or in
other democracies, we would increase the chances that nanotechnology is first developed in a
country without a free press. In which case we could not be certain that that country would
not use nanotechnology to oppress its neighbors or the rest of the world. So efforts to slow
progress only serve to threaten our own freedom. Therefore, a sensible course of action when
formulating nanotechnology policy is to assume that nanotechnology will be here sooner than
most people expect (the ten-year time horizon) and concentrate on guiding development to
avoid the dangers instead of blindly opposing development. When we consider what must be
accomplished in that time frame, it seems clear that we should begin the task as soon as
possible.
Tech diffusion is inevitable—export restrictions fail
Gierow 12-Reporters Without Borders Germany (Hauke, “Export Controls For Digital
Weapons”, EDRI-Gram 2012, http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.24/export-controlsdigital-weapons, MB)
While the European Governments often praise the positive role the Internet can have on the society in helping empower people and
promoting freedom of information and expression, European mass surveillance and censorship software is being exported under
their watch. Some
governments not only fail to enact controls, but even further the export of
such technology using export credit guarantees. Reporters Without Borders Germany fights for a regime to stop
the export of European surveillance and censorship equipment to countries which oppress freedom of information and the press.¶
Surveillance equipment is used, inter alia, to spy on journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists, democracy activists and their sources,
friends and even loose contacts. Many suppliers of this surveillance infrastructure are located in the European
Union, names like Nokia Siemens Networks, Gamma, Trovicor, Hacking Team and Bull / Amesys come to mind. Those firms
supplied equipment to Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Morocco and many more countries that
have systematically violated human rights over the course of the last years. In all of these countries at
the time of the instalment of surveillance infrastructure there was no press freedom and people were being tortured or imprisoned
for criticizing the government.¶ Reporters Without Borders believes that digital source protection is one of the most relevant issues
for modern journalism. All journalists should be aware how important it is to store sensitive information in a secure way, to make
sure they do not risk their sources’ lives or well-being. The possibility to encrypt emails, hard drives and use anonymous forms of
communication is one of the key elements to a free press. This requires additional training and awareness raising as well as strong
privacy and press freedom laws. That is why Reporters Without Borders Germany rejects the EU Data Retention Regime and other
means of Internet surveillance, be it in the EU or outside.¶ Today the
EU has placed restrictions on the export of
such surveillance equipment to Libya and Iran, but still lacks general rules and procedures . In
August, Reporters Without Borders Germany urged the German government to take action and enact a regime that bans the export
and trade of Digital Weapons made in Germany. Later, we also appealed to the EU-Commission to amend the EU Dual Use
regulation accordingly. The new "Strategy for Digital Freedoms in EU Foreign Policy" adopted by the European Parliament in early
December 2012 calls on the EU-Commission to propose legislation to control the export of Digital Arms and enact Net Neutrality. We
welcome this resolution and hope for subsequent legislation.
AT Hegemony DA
Government-controlled science diplomacy solves – allows cooperation which
bolsters soft power – multiple existential threats in the status quo means it’s
try or die
Sackett 10
[Penny Sackett, Former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in
theoretical physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU) Research School of
Astronomy and Astrophysics and Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories (2002 – 07),
August 10, 2010, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,”
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2010/08/science-diplomacy-collaboration-for-solutions/] WD
Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this
number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year. That’s about 2 more
mouths to feed every second. Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An
irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of people has managed to
change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are now
embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our
way of life and to natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of
many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true. A single person
could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The
message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be solved by
any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the
course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth
challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as
climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water and energy security require
concerted efforts and worldwide collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and
sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions
must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global
inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required between
individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a special
role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends
mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on
international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and
human world. Values integral to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed
debate also support effective international relation practices. Furthermore, given the longestablished global trade of scientific information and results, many important international
links are already in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and
cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when supported at a political level, can
provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations are already working
together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on
other global issues such as trade and security.
Goal-based science diplomacy is good – facilitates smart power which
comparatively outweighs other international frameworks
Edwards 11
[Austen O. Edwards, Georgia Institute of Technology, The Fellows Review 2011, “Conscience
sans Science: Staging Science Diplomacy for the 21st Century,”
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/Fellows2011/Edwards_Austen-_Final_Paper.pdf,] WD
As evident in the typology previously discussed, the range of international science cooperation
activities can also be understood by their primary goal. Flink and Schreiterer’s extensive
discussion on a goals-based typology suggests that scientific cooperation across borders is
sought simply in pursuit of “(a) access to researchers, research findings, and research facilities,
natural resources and capital; (b) promotion of a country’s achievements in R&D; or (c)
influence on other countries’ public opinion, decision-makers, and political or economic
leaders.” The AAAS reinforces and corroborates these delineations by describing how science
diplomacy can be conducted by the United States as a way to foster a developing country’s
capacity to translate S&T into economic growth or to increase international understanding of US
values and business practices. In particular, key proponents of the latter argue that science
diplomacy can be utilized to inject the often instable and irrational international community
with the norms and values of scientific research such as rational deliberation, universalism,
and the acknowledgement of better data despite who is putting forth the argument [Turekian
et. al, 2009]. Other foreign policy experts have also suggested that this field of study opens the
door for a large number of differing organizational actors (beyond governmental agencies) to
perform science diplomacy and maintain communication and cooperation links with the citizens
of other countries despite the present temperature of official relations [Pickering et. al, 2010].
Both the governmental and non-governmental approaches, however, focus on science
diplomacy’s us as tool to build stronger civil relationships abroad. Joseph Nye’s seminal book
Soft Power and Public Diplomacy shines further light on to this framework and its potential to
attract the sympathy, talents, capital, and political support of foreign populations to improve
both a nation’s leverage and international standing. By creating linkages independent of the
political process, science diplomacy therefore can potentially build relationships that seem to
rise above national constraints to create a metanetwork of independent, decentralized
diplomatic actors. After all, as Flink and Shreiterer state, “With cultural and political tensions
mounting all over the world, conventional diplomacy, military power, and political or
economic coercion have lost their former grip in IR” [Flink et. al, 2010]. The Obama-Clinton
doctrine has attempted since 2008 to accommodate the emerging theories of soft power
within the conventional concepts of international realist thought. This shift in the tone and
posture of US foreign policy to one of ‘smart power’ provides an opportunity to analyze and
reevaluate the tools brought to bear on the world stage. As then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in
her 2009 confirmation hearing, smart power uses “the full range of tools at our disposal –
diplomatic, economic, military, legal, and cultural – picking the right tool, or combination of
tools, for each situation.” However, these attempts to reframe American diplomacy in a new
conceptual framework as a logical extension of international liberal thought, including theories
of science diplomacy, risks a number of tradeoffs and consequences in terms of reasonable
expectations for these strategies.
AT Sci Dip=Bad Term
Science Diplomacy is an accurate, concise and effective term
National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of
the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public
opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International
Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” [pg.26]—2012
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW)
Diplomacy is also seen as the science or art of avoiding difficulties and successfully engaging in a
dialogue with others; thus, it is not surprising that many workshop participants regarded science diplomacy as a useful
means of global engagement. As Vaughan Turekian stated, science is a good way to engage with people from
other countries, because it provides a common language, is collaborative, addresses major
societal challenges, and is based on common methods (peer review, for example). But participants noted that
, at the same time, global scientific engagement, if called diplomacy, can be problematic for many U.S. governmental agencies, such
as the National Science Foundation (NSF), which have mandates to advance science—but not foreign policy.
there are advantages to using the simple, and accurate, label
cooperation
Therefore,
of advancing science through international
Counterplans
AT: Privatization
Private sector can’t solve; compromises scientific honesty
National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of
the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public
opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International
Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” [pg.28]—2012
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW)
Another question was about whether the corporate world was doing science. Vaughan Turekian stated that “governments
and metascience organizations (academics, associations, and so on) do science diplomacy, scientists do
science, and businesses do business.” One comment was that a science component in governmental
diplomacy is valuable, but science must still be real science; it must be true to the scientific
method, for example, not using selected evidence to reach a desired conclusion. Susan Gardner of
the U.S. Department of State observed that although businesses do indeed focus on business, their activity can influence
relationships and interstate diplomatic outcomes positively or negatively. This and several other examples and comments
emphasized the scale, effect, and importance of science and technology efforts outside of government.