Cuba Scenario
1nc Cuba
Congress is unlikely to block Obama’s plan to open a U.S. Embassy in Cuba but
the fight isn’t dead
Hattem, 7/7/15 (Julian, “Senators back off plan to block Cuban Embassy,” http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/247094-senate-billbacks-off-plan-to-block-cuban-embassy, JMP)
Senate Republicans appear unlikely to use the funding process to block President Obama’s plan
to open a U.S. Embassy in Cuba this month, despite initial vows to prevent the landmark policy change.
A $49 billion funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations that passed through a Senate Appropriations subcommittee was silent on the plan.
Efforts to amend it to block the embassy appear politically impossible, subcommittee
Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) acknowledged, though he opposes the new embassy as much as ever.
“On the Senate side, I’m not so sure we have all Republicans where I’m at in terms of not
establishing an embassy,” Graham, who is running for president, told reporters after the brief subcommittee markup. “I don’t
know if the votes are there on our side, quite frankly.”
Despite the heated opposition to Obama’s plans from Graham and other prominent Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), another presidential
hopeful, many conservatives have been more receptive of the change in posture.
Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), White House candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and others have welcomed the thaw in U.S.-Cuban relations.
The GOP opposition appeared to be in trouble last week when the White House announced
it planned to open the embassy in Cuba. The Cuban government said a U.S. Embassy in Havana and Cuban Embassy in
Washington would both open their doors on July 20.
Still, Graham’s crusade is not necessarily dead.
He is going to seek to add an amendment when the bill reaches the full committee later this
week, he told reporters, though it is unclear whether he has the support for it to stick.
“The one thing I’ve anticipated all my career is make sure I’ve got the votes,” he said. “So I’m going to offer it tomorrow and whether or not we vote on it will
be dependent on how the vote count goes.”
Unlike the Senate, House legislation to fund the State Department would block the creation
of the embassy, which could be a stumbling block for the administration.
A new ambassador to Cuba would also need to be confirmed by the Senate, which could be another hurdle.
“It’s just a matter of where the votes are at, and the House has good language, which I
support,” Graham said. “So this thing is not over yet.”
The Senate appropriations bill provides $49 billion in emergency and discretionary funding for the State Department and other foreign programs — a $2.8
billion cut from last year and nearly $5 billion below the White House’s request.
Obama will use his political capital to expand relations with Cuba
Milbank, 7/5/15 (Dana, “ Obama spending his windfall of political capital on Cuba ,”
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20150705/OPINION04/150709675, JMP)
The good tidings of the past week have been arguably more luck than achievement for Obama, but he deserves
credit for his effort
to use the momentum of his victories to revive what had been a moribund presidency . When
you earn political capital, as George W. Bush liked to say, you spend it. This is why it was shrewd of the
surging Obama to demand new action from Congress on Cuba.
“Americans and Cubans alike are ready to move forward; I believe it's time for Congress to do the same,” he said, renewing his call to lift the travel and trade
embargo. “Yes, there are those who want to turn back the clock and double down on a policy of isolation, but it's long past time for us to realize that this
approach doesn't work. It hasn't worked for 50 years. ... So I'd ask Congress to listen to the Cuban people, listen to the American people, listen to the words of
a proud Cuban American, [former Bush commerce secretary] Carlos Gutierrez, who recently came out against the policy of the past.”
Fifteen minutes later, Obama lifted off from the South Lawn in Marine One on his way to Nashville, where he tried to use the momentum generated by the
Supreme Court Obamacare victory to spread the program to states where Republican governors have resisted.
“What I'm hoping is that with the Supreme Court case now behind us, what we can do is ... now focus on how we can make it even better,” he said, adding,
“My hope is that on a bipartisan basis, in places like Tennessee but all across the country, we can now focus on ... what have we learned? What's working?
What's not working?”
He said that “because of politics, not all states have taken advantage of the options that are out there. Our hope is, is that more of them do.” He urged people
to “think about this in a practical American way instead of a partisan, political way.”
This probably won't happen, but it's
refreshing to see Obama, too often passive, regaining vigor as he approaches
the final 18 months of his presidency. The energy had, at least for the moment, returned to
the White House, where no fewer than six network correspondents were doing live stand-ups before Obama's appearance Wednesday morning.
There was a spring in the president's step, if not a swagger, as he emerged from the Oval Office trailed by Vice President Biden.
Republican presidential candidates were nearly unanimous in denouncing the plan to open a
U.S. embassy in Havana. But Obama , squinting in the sunlight as he read from his teleprompters, welcomed the
fight .
“The progress that we mark today is yet another demonstration that we don't have to be imprisoned by the past,” he said. Quoting a Cuban-American's view
that “you can't hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past,” Obama added, “That's what this is about: a choice between the future and the
past.”
Obama turned to go back inside, ignoring the question shouted by Bloomberg's Margaret Talev:
“How will you get an ambassador confirmed?”
That will indeed be tricky. But momentum is everything in politics — and for the moment,
Obama has it again.
***insert ev that Obama opposes the plan***
This means the plan is a perceived loss for Obama that saps his capital and
derails the agenda
Loomis, 7 --- Department of Government at Georgetown
(3/2/2007, Dr. Andrew J. Loomis is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Leveraging legitimacy in the crafting of U.S. foreign
policy,” pg 35-36, http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/9/4/8/pages179487/p179487-36.php)
Declining political authority encourages defection. American political analyst Norman Ornstein
writes of the domestic context,
In a system where a President has limited formal power, perception matters. The reputation
for success —the belief by other political actors that even when he looks down, a president will find a way to pull out a victory— is the most
valuable resource a chief executive can have . Conversely, the widespread belief that the Oval
Office occupant is on the defensive, on the wane or without the ability to win under
adversity can lead to disaster, as individual lawmakers calculate who will be on the winning
side and negotiate accordingly . In simple terms, winners win and losers lose more often than not .
Failure begets failure. In short, a president experiencing declining amounts of political
capital has diminished capacity to advance his goals. As a result, political allies perceive a
decreasing benefit in publicly tying themselves to the president, and an increasing benefit in allying with rising
centers of authority. A president’s incapacity and his record of success are interlocked and reinforce each other. Incapacity leads to political
failure, which reinforces perceptions of incapacity. This feedback loop accelerates decay
both in leadership capacity and defection by key allies.
The central point of this review of the presidential literature is that the
sources of presidential influence—and thus their
prospects for enjoying success in pursuing preferred foreign policies—go beyond the
structural factors imbued by the Constitution. Presidential authority is affected by ideational resources in the form of public
perceptions of legitimacy. The public offers and rescinds its support in accordance with normative trends and historical patterns, non-material sources of
power that affects the character of U.S. policy, foreign and domestic.
This brief review of the literature suggests how legitimacy
norms enhance presidential influence in ways that
structural powers cannot explain. Correspondingly, increased executive power improves the
prospects for policy success. As a variety of cases indicate—from Woodrow Wilson’s failure to generate domestic support for the League
of Nations to public pressure that is changing the current course of U.S. involvement in Iraq—the effective execution of foreign policy depends on public
support. Public support turns on perceptions of policy legitimacy. As a result, policymakers—starting with the president—pay close attention to the receptivity
that U.S. policy has with the domestic public. In this way, normative influences infiltrate policy-making processes and affect the character of policy decisions.
Relations with Cuba are key to broader Latin American Relations – spills over to
global cooperation on climate change
Inter-American Dialogue 12
Inter-American Dialogue, the center for policy analysis and communication on Western Hemisphere Affairs, “Remaking the Relationship The
United States and Latin America,” April, 2012, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf/NV
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin
America. The 50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the
hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain on US-Latin
American relations. Although the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax restrictions on travel to Cuba,
Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on normalized
relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American
engagement.
At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the Americas. At
present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American and Caribbean nations could be
instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An
end to the US policy of isolating Cuba,
without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an important first
step.
Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions. Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and
consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums addressing shared interests.
Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent years it has become far more active on global issues of
concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East
uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada
also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and provide security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to
raise the profile of emerging economies in various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
In addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political,
environmental, and security issues. Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could become increasingly important inc
As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to
participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American
interests do not always converge on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related
goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable
parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists. In that
context, south-south connections are crucial . Brazil could play a pivotal role.
Many countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges. This may position
them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of the Amazon basin
to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special
role to play. Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is
active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20.
Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún in 2010. The United States is handicapped by its
inability to devise a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the
presumption of shared interests on a critical policy challenge.
Latin Americans are taking more active leadership on drug policy in the hemisphere and
could become increasingly influential in global discussions of drug strategies. Although the United
States and Latin America are often at odds on drug policy, they have mutual interests and goals that should allow consultation and collaboration on a new,
more effective approach to the problem.
Global Warming causes extinction
Barnosky 14
Anthony Barnosky, a professor in the Department of Integrative Biology, curator at the Museum of Paleontology and a paleoecologist at the Museum of
Vertebrae Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, “Preventing the Sixth Mass Extinction Requires Dealing With Climate Change,” November 11,
2014, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-d-barnosky/preventing-the-sixth-mass_b_6161284.html/NV
Last week the United States and China signed a landmark agreement to combat climate change. This is an important step in guarding against even more
damage from rising seas that threaten major cities, increasingly common and severe storms that devastate lives and property, wildfires, drought, and the huge
economic costs that already are mounting from climate catastrophes.
However, from my perspective as a paleontologist who has spent decades studying the
impacts of climate change, both before and after people got into the act, there is an even bigger reason to forge
global climate agreements. Allowing the climate change we're now causing to continue
would virtually guarantee that human beings will be the first species in the planet's history
bring on a mass extinction of life on Earth.
Mass extinction means that at least three out every four species you are familiar with die out.
Forever. Extinction of that magnitude has happened only five times in the past 540 million
years, most recently 66 million years ago, when the last big dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid strike.
Today, even without human-caused climate change thrown into the mix, most
scientists agree that we -- Homo sapiens -have been pushing the world towards the sixth mass extinction from such long-recognized human pressures as
The magnitude of those pressures is
overwhelming when you start to think on the global scale. We've completely plowed, paved,
or otherwise transformed 50 percent of Earth's lands, taking all those places out of play for the species that used to live
there. With 7 billion of us (and more added every day) on the planet, the human race now takes
more than a third of all the energy produced by plant photosynthesis -- so-called net primary productivity -just to support itself. That means a third less energy is available to sustain life for all the other species on
the planet.
habitat destruction (for instance from deforestation or pollution), poaching, and overfishing.
as a result of such pressures, at last count, well over
20,000 species are now threatened with extinction. That is more than a quarter of all
evaluated species. Of course, the actual number of species hanging on by a thread is likely
much higher, given that many species have not even been evaluated yet.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has determined that,
Adding today's human-caused climate change -- and especially the accelerated changes projected under business-as-usual
scenarios -- into the milieu of extinction drivers is like adding a match to gasoline. One reason is that the planet is rapidly
heating up to a temperature that most species on Earth today have never experienced. For
example, never in the 160,000-year history of the human species have we seen an Earth as hot as it will be by mid-century. Keep that warming
going until the year 2100 and Earth would be hotter than it has been in the past 14 million
years; that is the trajectory we are now on. Most species alive today, however, have only evolved to cope with climatic conditions
that have existed over the past 2 million years.
The rapidity of human-caused climate change is the second big problem causing
extinctions. Today, climate is changing at least 10 times more quickly than living species have ever
experienced in their evolutionary history. That means that evolving to cope with the newly emerging climatic
conditions is not an option for most species, because evolution has a speed limit usually reckoned in
thousands to millions of years. Evolving to meet such a severe climate challenge over a hundred years or so simply exceeds most species' adaptive capacity,
ultimately because genetic mutation rates are so slow. The exceptions -- the adaptive winners in the climate change game, if you will -- are species that
reproduce quickly and in prodigious numbers, like flies, mosquitoes, rats, and mice.
Easier than adapting, of course, is simply up and moving, which species have been known to do during past times of climate change, though none of those
past climate changes was as rapid as what is happening today. But even
in cases where species could theoretically run
quickly enough, on today's landscape, and especially given the shifting climatic regimes of
the coming decades, there is nowhere to run to. Not only are the few remaining patches of habitat that contain diverse species
separated by impenetrable human-modified and human-dominated landscapes and seascapes, but ongoing climate change promises
to steal the very habitats that now support most species on the planet. On land, as much as two thirds of all
species live in tropical and subtropical forests, yet climate models indicate that by the time babies today are middle-aged, the climate required to support those
tropical and subtropical species will disappear over large swaths of the lands where they currently live and will be found nowhere on Earth.
In the oceans, it looks every bit as grim if we do nothing to slow climate change. Both
experimental and modeling research indicates that warming waters and the other byproduct
of elevated greenhouse gases, rising acidity in the oceans, would likely cause coral reefs to
disappear almost entirely by 2070. These "rainforests of the sea" support 25 percent of all the
ocean's species -- and 10 percent of the world's fisheries, which provide the principal protein for hundreds of millions
of people and inject billions of dollars per year into the world economy.
Avoiding such dire scenarios requires a multi-pronged effort to address all known extinction
drivers -- including protecting remaining habitats, halting poaching, cleaning up pollution, slowing and stabilizing human population growth, and ascribing
economic value to biodiversity in general and to keeping species like elephants and tigers alive rather than selling their bodies for parts. And indeed,
efforts focused in those directions have proven successful in bringing some species back
from the brink.
But human-caused climate change has fundamentally changed the extinction game to one
we are destined to lose if we simply continue business as usual. The only way to prevent the
extinction of thousands of species will be to slow greenhouse warming dramatically, which
requires rapidly shifting from a fossil-fuel economy to one dominated by carbon-neutral
energy. Numerous analyses have shown the technology and expertise exists to make this possible. All that's standing in the way is deciding it's the right
thing to do.
It is still unclear whether the world is ready to do anything about climate change. The follow-up to last week's historic climate agreement between the United
States and China will be telling. And
while it's appropriate that world leaders are weighing the immediate
human impacts against the costs of climate action, it's also essential that they, and the rest
of us, see the bigger picture. The most critical accounting needs to be reckoned in lives, not
only of individuals but of entire species. That accounting under a business-as-usual scenario rapidly adds up to the sixth mass
extinction. And, while many impacts of climate change may come and go and vary from place to place, extinction is forever.
Uniqueness
2nc Uniqueness / Political Capital Key
Republicans are trying to block the new U.S. Embassy in Cuba --- they are
unlikely to succeed now, but the fight is not dead. That’s Hattem.
And, Obama must maintain his momentum --- he will parlay current political
successes into a legislative victory on relations with Cuba. That’s Milbank.
You should defer to optimistic predictions because Obama’ regained power is
changing political calculations. This perception is independently key to deter
China and Russia.
Japan Times, 7/6/15 (Editorial, “Obama a lame duck? Think again,”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/07/06/editorials/obama-a-lame-duck-think-again/#.VZqgavmGPD9, JMP)
The power of the president of the United States weakens considerably from the beginning of his second term. The mandate gained by re-election quickly
The second mid-term election, which typically rewards
the party that does not occupy the White House, deepens the slide to irrelevance. In the case of Barack Obama, the
conventional wisdom is that he is biding his time until he leaves, fighting a rear guard battle against a determined
dissipates as Washington begins to focus on the process of selecting his successor.
opposition, desperate to consolidate and protect his legacy.
The conventional wisdom is wrong.
Recent events have confirmed to the U.S.
public, lawmakers and the rest of the world that Obama remains a
powerful figure , able to move the levers of government as he desires and to rouse public
passions. He remains a force to be reckoned with. His presidency is by no means over.
Obama made clear at the beginning of 2014 that he would not be sidelined. He reminded Congress that he “had a pen and a phone” and he was ready to use
both to push his agenda. The most prominent actions he has taken include an executive order to defer the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants,
opening negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba and vetoing the first bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that would force the
commencement of construction of the controversial Keystone pipeline.
Each move triggered outrage, protests and countermeasures by his opponents. Undaunted,
Obama pressed on, and last month he won some of his biggest victories yet. In a key decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Obama’s most important legacy, his health care reforms. That ruling has two important implications. First, it means that
the law will stay on the books for another two years, during which more Americans will benefit from the reforms and will make it virtually impossible to repeal
should a GOP candidate claim the White House in the 2016 election. Second, the legal basis of the ruling was such that it will require a congressional vote to
repeal the law; it cannot be “reinterpreted” by a future administration in ways that gut its intent.
The Supreme Court gave the president a second victory days later when it recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The president has been a
staunch supporter of LGBT rights and this decision gives him a big domestic boost. Equally significantly, it puts opponents on the defensive; Obama can use
their rejection of this decision to discredit their opposition on other issues.
A third important victory came with congressional approval of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the vital
prerequisite to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the key economic initiative of his foreign policy toward Asia, as well as the
TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that is also under negotiation and likely to conclude during Obama’s term. This was a bitter fight,
primarily against members of his own party, and
the president’s readiness to take on fellow Democrats is a sign
that he is still focused on his agenda , not merely that of his party.
On the foreign policy front, the announcement that the U.S and Cuba are ready to resume
diplomatic ties and reopen embassies in each country is a long overdue development and
another bold stroke. If the Iranian nuclear negotiations proceed to an agreement that both sides can accept, then Obama will have transformed
relations with two long-standing adversaries and, potentially, permanently altered dynamics in two vitally important regions.
The announcement that Russian President Vladimir Putin has twice reached out to Obama in the past
week is an indication that
world leaders are aware of his new standing and
authority. Putin can smell weakness and exploits it. His readiness to
engage Obama suggests that he understands that a new dynamic is at
work in Washington.
In Beijing, Chinese officials are now preparing for the September visit of President Xi
Jinping to the U.S. Their determination to ensure that meeting is a success, coupled with
growing discontent in Asia over assertive Chinese behavior in the South China Sea, gives
Obama additional leverage in that relationship .
There is a final critical factor that cannot be estimated, nor can it be overlooked: the Obama image
and his rhetorical gifts. For all the pomp and circumstance, the power of the U.S. president both at home
and abroad is limited . The president, no matter who he is, cannot direct the economy nor bring peace to the Middle East. He does,
however, occupy a bully pulpit, and from that post he can bring his moral stature to bear on
problems, domestic and foreign. As has been made repeatedly clear in recent weeks — speaking in Selma on the 50th anniversary of the
march there and again in Charleston, South Carolina at the funeral of the slain pastor Clementa Pinckney — Obama has a singular gift to rise above the noise,
raise his nation and focus its attention. That alone is reason why Obama remains a powerful leader, even as his term winds to a close.
Cuba agenda will be a major fight with Congress, but even support for lifting
the embargo is possible with Obama’s momentum
Carney, 7/3/15 (Jordain, “Obama heads for showdown over Cuba embassy,” http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/246817-obamaheads-for-showdown-over-cuba-embassy/, JMP)
Obama is heading for a showdown with Congress after announcing plans to reopen the
U.S. embassy in Cuba.
President
The administration's move is part of a months-long discussion between the two countries to
normalize relations that could hand Obama a needed foreign policy win, but only if he can
get lawmakers on board .
But that could be an impossible task. While the
administration can reopen the embassy without Congress signing off, they’ll need
lawmakers to help approve an ambassador, fund the embassy, and lift a decades-old
embargo .
Congressional Republicans, and some Democrats, are already plotting to block the
administration’s efforts, suggesting that Obama is going easy on a dictatorial regime.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called the decision to reopen the embassy the latest example of Obama’s “appeasement of dictators.”
The Arkansas Republican is planning to work with his Senate colleagues to block funding for an embassy and vote against a potential ambassador “until there
is real, fundamental change that gives hope to the oppressed people of Cuba.”
He could find an ally across the aisle in Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been a vocal critic of Obama’s policy. The Cuban-American senator said
Obama’s decision “is not in our national interest.”
“An already one-sided deal that benefits the Cuban regime is becoming all the more lopsided,” he added. "The message is democracy and human rights take a
back seat to a legacy initiative.”
Across the Capitol, Republican leadership also opposes Obama’s Cuba moves, with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) saying that “relations with the
Castro regime should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until Cubans enjoy freedom – and not one second sooner.”
The congressional opposition is hardly new. House lawmakers agreed in a 247-176 vote last month to keep the current restrictions on Americans wanting to
travel to Cuba in place, effectively blocking rules issued earlier this year to make traveling easier."
The House is also using its spending bills to try to torpedo Obama’s efforts. A bill to fund the State
Department would prohibit funds from being used to build a new embassy.
The administration has requested approximately $6 million to improve its current building there and convert it to a working embassy.
Despite the congressional backlash, administration officials are adamant
that it would be a mistake for lawmakers to block Obama’s efforts, and
suggest they could find common ground.
A senior State Department official said that a decision by lawmakers to fight the president’s policy would be counterproductive.
“It would be a shame if Congress impeded implementation of some of the very things that we think they – we all agree we want to do, such as better outreach
to the Cuban people all over the island or additional,” the official said.
“These are the kinds of things that we can do as we move forward in this relationship with a more robust embassy. And I would assume that most on the Hill
agree those are a good thing to do.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that while he hasn’t “done any whip
counts, but
I do think that there is, at minimum, strong support in the United
States Congress... for lifting the embargo on Cuba.”
And the administration isn’t without allies across the aisle as it prepares to sell lawmakers .
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has said “it’s long past time” to change the country’s policy on Cuba.
Meanwhile, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) called Obama’s announcement “a step in the right direction,” but added that “fundamental issues must be addressed by
its government before our two nations can establish the bilateral relationship they are capable of achieving.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, offered a more measured response, saying that he will "continue to carefully
evaluate the most appropriate way forward for the U.S.-Cuba relationship."
The Tennessee Republican suggested late last year that the Cuban embargo hasn’t been effective, but said in a statement provided to The Hill that “we still
have yet to see any significant actions by the Castro regime that will benefit the United States or enhance freedoms and circumstances for the Cuban people.”
As Foreign Relations Chairman, Corker has wide sway over whether or not a nominee to be the U.S. ambassador to Cuba gets a confirmation hearing or a
vote.
The administration could also have an unlikely ally in Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who has been silent on Cuba
since Obama’s announcement.
The 2016 presidential candidate got in a Twitter skirmish late last year with Sen. Marco Rubio, who is also running for president, over the Florida Republican’s
support for the embargo.
Obama has political momentum now to secure more victories in Congress,
including on Cuba
Fabian, 7/3/15 (Jordan, “Obama defies second-term slump,” http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/246750-obama-defies-secondterm-slump, JMP)
President Obama is seeking to finalize a nuclear agreement with Iran next week, an achievement that would add to a big year that is defying predictions of a
second-term slump.
At a time when most presidents worry about losing clout, Obama is coming off what some
have called his best week ever: favorable Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage and ObamaCare and passage of his trade agenda in
Congress.
The president is looking to seize on the momentum.
In addition to the Iran deal,
Obama wants to move ahead with his plan to open up Cuba , and he is working to
complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries that is key to Obama’s foreign policy pivot to Asia.
“We are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make as long as I have the
privilege of holding this office,” Obama said at a press conference Tuesday, in which he spoke of a long list of business that he
wants to complete.
A strong 2015 for Obama followed two difficult years at the beginning of his second term.
His pushes for gun control and immigration reform fizzled out in Congress. Revelations of the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance practices, the
Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups and an Ebola outbreak blunted the president’s momentum. The rollout of HealthCare.Gov was
disastrous.
After Republicans won control of the Senate, pundits predicted Obama would fade into the background of the 2016 presidential race.
He was compared to President George W. Bush, who had a disastrous 2005 after winning reelection and never recovered.
When a poll released last June showed Obama’s approval ratings plunging, NBC’s Chuck Todd declared “essentially, the public is saying your presidency is
over.”
Obama has enjoyed a series of victories over the last year culminating in his signing of
fast-track authority last week.
Instead,
The second-year rollout of ObamaCare went much more smoothly than the first, and the law’s approval with the public has ticked up marginally. The Supreme
Court’s decision last week means the law is almost certainly safe in the courts, and with millions getting benefits the White House believes it will be more
difficult for Republicans to repeal it if they are able to take the White House.
Uniqueness: Winning / Momentum Now
Obama’s on a winning streak now --- opponents are looking for a way to slow him down
York 7/10
Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, “GOP searches for strategy to counter Obama winning streak,” July 10,
2015, Lamar News, http://www.lamarledger.com/lamar-news/ci_28416019/gop-searches-strategy-counter-obama-winning-streak/NV
Republicans have tried to pin the lame duck label on President Obama for quite a while now. But
for a lame duck, Obama is doing pretty well.
He won on Obamacare. He won on gay marriage. He won on trade. His party was even able
to leverage a horrendous crime — the killings in Charleston — to put Republicans on the defensive over
the Confederate flag.
A president's approval rating, and his general image of success or failure, affect the candidate of his party seeking to succeed him. From that
perspective, Obama's victories are a gift to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, Clinton was quick to embrace the Supreme Court Affordable Care Act decision. "Yes!" she tweeted just minutes after the news broke.
"SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under the law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all."
A short time after Clinton's statement, I sent notes to several Republican operatives, some working on presidential campaigns and some
unaffiliated. How do GOP candidates deal with a president on a winning streak? How does it affect the campaign? Does it give Clinton a stronger
hand? The answers that came back showed a party struggling to figure out exactly how to deal with the Democrats' recent run.
Some stressed that the president's wins aren't really his, pointing especially to the trade deal, in which Obama succeeded almost entirely because of
Republican help.
"Yes, he can claim some victories, but few of his own making and mostly due to other actors, for their own reasons, making things happen," said Dave Carney,
the New Hampshire-based strategist who advised Rick Perry in the last election. "He has become the Forrest Gump of presidents."
Others laid blame on GOP lawmakers in Congress, arguing they must do more to stop the president's agenda. "Republicans in Washington need to act and put
pressure on Obama to veto conservative legislation or come to the table," said Tim Miller of the Jeb Bush campaign. "There has been a lot of talking, but
Republicans need to start getting results."
Still others argued that Obama's wins don't say much about the merits of his agenda. "He won the (Obamacare) case, but just having the Court say
it was legal doesn't make it good policy, popular with the American people, or good healthcare," noted Curt Anderson, a top adviser to the Bobby
Jindal campaign.
Some saw Obama's wins as tangential to the issues that matter most with voters, explaining that
Obama is still a loser when it comes to the big stuff.
"When the voters start giving the president credit for a booming economy and a globe-spanning string of foreign policy successes, then the
Republicans will have to worry," said Vin Weber, a longtime GOP strategist who is an outside adviser to the Bush campaign.
Finally, others saw Obama's wins as mainly the work of a Washington establishment out of touch with economic suffering going on beyond the
Beltway.
Obama and America's elites are winning, winning, winning ," said Alex Castellanos, a
longtime GOP strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign this time around. "Let the
peasants eat cake, Obamacare, and unemployment. A lot of steam is building up in the
populist pressure cooker. In 2016, some very angry peasants are going to storm Washington with torches and pitchforks."
"President
One could spend a long time searching those statements for a single, fully coherent strategy to counter the president and neutralize the benefit his
victories might confer on Hillary Clinton. That's not really a surprise, given that there are currently 13 declared candidates, with three more likely
to come, in the race for the Republican nomination. But whichever course they choose, Republicans will have to connect with the people who lose
when Obama wins.
After the Supreme Court decision, the GOP candidates themselves issued mostly boilerplate statements. They pledged to keep fighting. They
vowed, as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said, to make the 2016 election "a national referendum on repealing Obamacare." They promised to replace
Obamacare with something better.
But what's going on now is bigger than simply Obamacare. The president is on a roll at the
moment, and the Democrat who hopes to follow him to the White House is looking to roll
along. Republicans need a focused strategy to stop that momentum. So far, the GOP is still
looking .
Obama has a winning streak now
Jackson 7/9
Jesse L. Jackson Sr., a civil rights activist and a shadow US senator from 1991 to 1997, “President Obama is on a winning streak,” July 9, 2015,
Pittsburg Courier, http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2015/07/09/president-obama-is-on-a-winning-streak/NV
(NNPA)—The
presidency is a bit like a baseball season. Players go through streaks and slumps,
good days and bad days. Teams rack up wins and losses. It is only over the course of the long season that
champions emerge, their record of accomplishment finally coming clear.
As President Obama’s
eight years heads into its final stretch, his accomplishments are becoming
clear, rising above the daily skirmishes, wins and losses. As the first African American president, Obama was always going
to be an historic figure. But increasingly, it is becoming clear that he will be remembered as a significant president not simply for winning office,
50 percent of
Americans now think the Obama presidency has been a success—an impressive number
given the bitter partisan divides of our politics.
but for what he accomplished while holding it. The first inklings of the results are reflected in recent polls showing that
Economically, the president inherited an economy that was in free fall, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. Now he presides
over an economy that has created 12 million jobs, witnessed the fastest economic growth in a decade, and sets a record each month for the longest
consecutive months of jobs growth. And the
U.S. recovery has far outstripped that of Europe. And this was
accomplished despite the unrelenting obstruction of the Republican opposition that committed itself
from day one to opposing everything Obama attempted.
Health care reform—with the Affordable Care Act reaffirmed once more in the Supreme Court—has provided a big step forward. Some
15 million Americans have gained insurance, even as health care costs have risen at the lowest levels this century. And that despite the
fact that partisan opposition led about half of the states to oppose expansion of Medicaid,
denying millions from protection.
On the environment, the president is the most important leader since…well, since Nixon. His
stimulus plan provided a major boost to renewable energy. He used regulation and executive order—particularly the gas
mileage standards and the soon to come carbon emission standards—to boost energy conservation and limit carbon emissions.
He will carry a strong hand into the round of climate negotiations in Paris.
On immigration, the Congress has stymied comprehensive reform. But by executive order, the
president has provided some hope for the millions left in the margins.
On social issues, the president has been more observer than actor. Yet on his watch, the Supreme Court has ratified gay marriage. After the
publicity about police shootings garnered attention, a bipartisan turn against mass incarceration has gained momentum with the Justice
Department weighing in.
On economic inequality, President Obama used his bully pulpit to put the issue in the front of the American people. In the budgetary wars, he
has succeeded in raising taxes on the rich. He sought, with little success, to increase investment in the most vulnerable. Inequality has grown
more extreme on his watch, but any hopes of redressing it were blocked by Republican opposition to any and all efforts to take on the rigged rules
that feed the inequality.
On foreign policy, the president’s effort to extricate us from the sectarian wars in the Persian Gulf have been largely frustrated. Troops are going
back into Iraq, now to take on the threat posed by ISIS. He has emerged as a defender of presidential prerogatives in national security. His
administration has continued to police the world, while deploying drones across the Middle East. By opening relations with Cuba, the president
has created the basis for a new start with our neighbors in this hemisphere.
Much, of course, remains to be done. The president remains wedded to the failed trade
policies of the past decades. There has been no clear policy for urban development or for targeting the most vulnerable
communities. Government has grown more corrupted, not less. Big money dominates our politics
more than ever before. The president’s education policy with its emphasis on high stakes testing has been a disappointment.
But this president has faced unprecedented obstruction , insult and venomous hatreds. He has more
than survived; he has a record of accomplishment
to be proud of.
And has forged a potential
majority political coalition that could insure —if its members show up at the voting booth—
that reform accelerates rather than retreats.
Yes Normalization & End Embargo / PC Key
***note when prepping file --- the Carney 7/3/15 ev in the 2nc Uniqueness
block also says there is strong support in Congress for lifting the embargo.
Support is growing for greater liberalization but Obama’s ability to negotiate
effectively is critical
Trotta 5/27
Daniel Trotta, reporter for Daily Mail.com, “US senator says support growing in Congress to end Cuba travel ban,” May 27, 2015, Daily Mail.com,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3100189/US-senator-says-support-growing-Congress-end-Cuba-travel-ban.html/NV
HAVANA, May 27 (Reuters) - A
U.S. senator visiting Cuba said bipartisan support was gaining in
Congress to lift a ban on travel to Cuba and possibly also to end the long economic embargo
against the Communist-led island.
A four-person Democratic delegation led by Senator Tom Udall came to Cuba while
Washington and Havana work toward restoring diplomatic relations. Negotiators for both sides met in
Washington last week, saying progress had been made toward the reopening of embassies after 54 years.
Since President Barack Obama
in December reversed the Cold War-era policy of isolating Cuba, U.S.
legislators have proposed a host of Cuba-related bills that would end the travel ban and
promote agricultural sales and Internet cooperation.
"There's growing bipartisan support in the Senate for all of these bills," Udall, a Democrat of New Mexico, told reporters in Havana.
"Today in the Foreign Relations Committee a majority of Democrats and Republicans
support dropping the travel ban. We're at a point where the bipartisan support is building,"
Udall said.
Obama has allowed Americans to more easily make authorized visits but tourism remains banned.
The Democratic president has also proposed eliminating the comprehensive U.S. economic
embargo of Cuba. A bill to that effect has been presented but needs the Republican leadership in both houses to accede to a vote, so far
a remote possibility.
Asked specifically about prospects for a congressional vote to lift the embargo , Udall said,
"There are many avenues for changing the law" besides bringing an individual bill to a vote,
such as an omnibus package that joins multiple bills, typically cobbled together at the end of
the year.
"It may well be that the president's able to negotiate some of those things in the bills,"
Udall
said.
Opponents of the embargo also see lifting the travel ban as a way to weaken the HelmsBurton Act of 1996, the legislation that codifies the embargo.
Udall and Senator Al Franken of Minnesota both cited public opinion polls showing growing majorities in support of engaging with Cuba. They
were joined by Representatives Raul Grijalva of Arizona and John Larson of Connecticut in meeting Cuban officials and private citizens.
(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Leslie Adler)
Obama will use his political momentum to try and normalize relations with
Cuba
Talev and Lakshmanan 7/1
Margaret Talev and Indira Lakshmanan, a board member for the White House Correspondents’ Association and the Washington Press
Foundation/ a senior correspondent for Bloomberg News, “Obama Urges Congress to Take Next Step, Lift Cuba Embargo,” July 1, 2015,
Bloomberg Politics, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-01/obama-urges-congress-to-lift-cuba-embargo-after-embassy-opened/NV
President Barack Obama
urged Congress to follow his decision to reopen the American embassy in
Havana by lifting the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba.
“We don’t have to be imprisoned by the past,” Obama said on Wednesday at the White House. “Americans and Cubans alike are looking to move
forward. I believe it’s time for Congress to do the same.”
The embassy will reopen on July 20, when Cuba also will reopen its embassy in Washington.
Secretary of State John Kerry intends to go to Havana to “proudly raise the American flag over our embassy once more,” Obama said.
Jeffrey DeLaurentis, who heads the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and would be the initial envoy heading the reopened embassy, delivered a
letter from Obama confirming the plans addressed to Cuba President Raul Castro, according to Cuba’s Foreign Ministry.
The question for Obama is whether he has the political momentum coming off a series of
high-profile victories to accomplish the next steps in what he said would be a long process of
normalization: getting the embargo lifted and a U.S. ambassador to Cuba confirmed by the
Republican-controlled Senate. Obama hasn’t decided whether to nominate an ambassador in the immediate future or keep it operating
under DeLaurentis as charge d’affaires, according to an administration official.
Despite opposition, normalization is possible – Obama will have to navigate
past congressional roadblocks
Chenghao 7/6 --- assistant research fellow at the Institute of American Studies at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations
Sun Chenghao, “U.S.-Cuba relations: What should we expect next?” July 7, 2015, CCTV.com,
http://english.cntv.cn/2015/07/06/ARTI1436162187226651.shtml/NV
U.S. President Barack Obama
announced on July 1 that Cuba and the United States plan reopen their
embassies with each other. Last December, Barack Obama and Cuban President Raúl Castro's speeches had kicked off the normalization of
bilateral ties.
This April, the two leaders met at the Summit of Americas. Later in May, the U.S. dropped
Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorists. The two countries held four rounds of
normalization talks and the U.S. sent several high-level delegations to Cuba.
Obama is pushing forward on the thaw of U.S.-Cuba relationship.
Before entering the White House in 2009, he
penned an article, "Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba" published in the Miami Herald, arguing that "if a post-Fidel government begins to open Cuba up to
democratic change, the US is prepared to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five
decades."
Soon afterwards, President Obama
has moved ahead on a so-called transformational foreign policy,
which advocates engagement with "hostile countries". In March 2009, he signed a Senate appropriations bill that made
it easier for Cuban-Americans to visit their relatives in Cuba and paved the way for more business travelers to visit the island.
Yet the clock is ticking before Obama leaves the White House. When the new president assumes power in 2017 and if the president is a member of the
Republican Party, then normalization of relations between the two countries may likely come to a halt.
Most Republican presidential candidates have denounced the Obama administration's agreements with Cuba. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, criticized
Obama for making too many concessions and supporting an agreement that was "outrageous and counterproductive". Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker expressed
concerns that Obama hopes to open a US embassy in Iran as well.
Accordingly. Cuba should quicken its pace. Cuba's economic reforms have entered the "bottleneck" phase and in urgent need of more foreign capital and
expertise. Its economic growth rate in 2013 was 2.7%, lower than government's anticipated growth rate of 3.6%. The Cuban economy is expected to slow
down even further in 2014. Cuba's reforms have yet to translate into real sustainable economic growth.
The U.S. with its huge amount of capital and technologic strength, could become a major capital exporter and trading partner for Cuba. Improving relations
with the U.S. has been a long-held wish for the elder generation of Cuba's revolutionaries. Upon taking office in 2013, Raúl disclosed that he would resign after
2018. The new generation of Cuban leadership supports a smooth power transition.
Meanwhile there are still deep seated differences between both nations. The economic blockade that the U.S. imposes on Cuba stands as the biggest obstacle.
There are multiple legislative acts that impose sanctions on Cuba, including the Helms-Burton Act, passed in Congress and signed by then President Bill
Clinton in 1996, which strictly limits U.S. companies from trading with Cuba.
The act states that unless a transition towards free and fair elections are held in Cuba, the economic blockade would never be abolished. The Cuban
government has long called for elimination of the blockade.
The Cuban foreign minister said that if the U.S. still imposes full-range economic, trade and
financial sanctions, the Cuba-U.S. relationship will not be normalized. However, only Congress
can change such legislation , but the Republican Party controls Congress and Republican U.S. Representatives support a continuation of
such sanctions.
Congress can also deny funding for embassies and ambassador appointments.
Republican senators and
presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz support this strategy, unless Cuba lift its restrictions on U.S. diplomats and promises more political
freedoms.
Additionally, the Cuban government and its citizens remain suspicious of the U.S. The two countries haven't reached a consensus on immigration, human
rights, free passage of diplomatic personnel, the issue of returning Guantánamo, and compensation of sanction loss, and hence the normalization process will
be long and complicated. Cuba harbors doubts that the U.S. "approach is in good will" but an attempt to export western values or to seek regime change.
Nonetheless, the way forward is long, but the prospects still appear bright. As revealed in a survey
conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs during May 25-June 17, two in three Americans (67%) support the US ending the trade embargo with
Cuba. This appearance of solid popular support from the American public could act as a major impetus to boost U.S.-Cuba relations.
Political climate is starting to shift toward greater normalization --- action by
congress is key
CNN Wire 7/1
CNN Wire, “U.S.-Cuba relations: 10 questions on the embargo, embassies and cigars,” July 1, 2015, WTVR.com,
http://wtvr.com/2015/07/01/us-cuba-relations/NV
WASHINGTON — Havana
is getting its first U.S. embassy in more than half a century — but don’t pack
your bags just yet. President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that the two countries are formally
reestablishing diplomatic ties with the opening of embassies in each other’s capitals, marking the most momentous step in the diplomatic
thaw Obama initiated with Cuba in December.
It puts the U.S. on a path of access to the island that many Americans tourists might like to enjoy, but stops just shy of open travel.
The agreement does, though, mark the most sweeping change in U.S. policy toward the nation that lies just 100 miles off the U.S. coast since the U.S. embargo
on Cuba started in the early 1960s.
There’s a lot at play though. Here are 10 things you need to know:
When did the U.S. and Cuba agree to reopen embassies?
A public dialogue between the two countries resumed in December, when
Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced
that they would begin working to normalize relations. That came at the same time as Cuba
agreed to release Alan Gross, an American aid worker imprisoned in Cuba since 2009 — an apparent show of good faith from the Cuban
government.
Since December, U.S. and Cuban officials began negotiations to reestablish diplomatic ties
and normalize relations between the two countries, including putting an embassy in each
country’s capital.
Obama then took a big step in April that led to the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Cuba had sat on that list since 1982.
All of that, though, has yet to fully lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba, a move that would allow Americans and Cubans to freely travel between the two countries
and engage in any trade.
Why did the embargo start in the first place?
The U.S. began imposing sanctions against Cuba after Fidel Castro seized power in 1959 and soon after he nationalized more than $1 billion in American
assets on the island. That’s two years before Obama was even born.
The U.S. ratcheted up sanctions on Cuba in 1960 and 1961 with President John F. Kennedy making the embargo official in 1962.
Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba broke off in 1961, with tensions increasing after Cuba signed a trade agreement with the Soviet
Union. Relations remained mostly frozen throughout the Cold War.
Today, Cuba remains an autocratic regime — Fidel Castro’s brother Raul is president — with a poor record on human rights and a track record of silencing
dissent and restricting the rights of its citizens.
What kind of restrictions does the embargo currently impose?
The embargo not only keeps American companies from doing business in Cuba, but it also prohibits most Americans from traveling directly there or spending
money as tourists.
American citizens can face up to a $65,000 fine for spending money in Cuba, according to the U.S. Treasury. The embargo also limits the amount of
individuals can send to family living in Cuba.
So what’s changed now?
In addition to reopening embassies in each country, the U.S. will ease travel restrictions, so it will be easier for Americans to travel to Cuba and do business
there. Though the embargo officially blocks such activities, the White House has discretion about the application of certain measures, and several presidents
have found ways to ease the restrictions even as the overall embargo remains in place.
U.S. and Cuban banks will be allowed to start building relationships and that means American travelers will be able to use their credit and debit cards when
visiting.
Americans returning from a trip to Cuba can now return with up to $400 in Cuban goods, a quarter of which can be spent on alcohol and tobacco.
Think Cuban cigars.
And in return, Cuba freed 53 political prisoners and relaxed its restrictions on Internet access. Gross had been arrested after delivering satellite phones and
other communications equipment to Cuba’s small Jewish population.
So why doesn’t Obama just end the embargo altogether?
He can’t. Only Congress can end a trade embargo, which
House officials, the President can ease certain restrictions under his executive authority.
is enshrined into law. But according to White
This is the third time Obama has acted to ease the embargo. But policy changes in 2009 and 2011, which eased travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans and
later for academics and religious groups, didn’t come close to the scope of Wednesday’s landmark agreement.
Does the U.S. have international backing to keep the embargo in place?
Barely. Over the last two decades, the United Nations General Assembly has voted each year against the embargo, calling on the U.S. to reverse its policy.
Only Israel has joined the U.S. in voting against the resolution.
What’s the political climate like in the U.S.?
It’s shifting and more political leaders and Cuban-Americans have been calling for changes in
the U.S. policy toward Cuba in recent years.
Cuban refugees in America and their descendants have historically been the most vocal group in calling for a tough U.S. policy against Cuba. But nearly 7 in 10
Cubans now favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and about half want the U.S. to end the embargo, according to a Florida International
University poll this summer.
That has changed the climate of politics in the Miami area and throughout Florida, where most Cuban Americans reside, a shift that is sending ripples
throughout the country.
What have politicians been saying about Cuba recently and what’s the Pope got to do with it?
Former Secretary of State and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for an end to the embargo, calling it “Fidel Castro’s best friend.”
Many Republican presidential candidates, however, have slammed the move.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said this year the ban should actually be strengthened, not lifted.
And Sen. Marco Rubio, whose parents fled Cuba after Fidel Castro’s takeover, has called the embargo “the last tool we have remaining to ensure that
democracy returns to Cuba one day.”
Obama, though, has said normalization will increase American influence on Cuba and help efforts to improve its record on human rights.
He shook hands with Castro at Nelson Mandela’s funeral in South Africa in a moment that played on TV screens around the world. Since then, negotiations
have continued and even the Pope weighed in. He wrote letters to both Obama and Castro earlier this year encouraging compromise.
How did Gross’s detention impacted the debate?
Gross’s imprisonment in 2009 set off a series of diplomatic exchanges between the two countries that involved prominent U.S. politicians.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led congressional delegations to Cuba in 2012 and 2013 to secure Gross’s release. The delegation
in 2013 included three Democratic Senators, a Republican Senator and two Democratic congressmen.
That same year, 66 senators wrote to Obama urging him to “act expeditiously to take whatever steps are in the national interest to obtain [Gross’s] release.”
And in November, Sens. Jeff Flake, a Republican, and Tom Udall, a Democrat, traveled to Cuba in another attempt to negotiate Gross’s release.
In 2011, former President Jimmy Carter also made an attempt as did former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, both of whose efforts were backed by the
State Department.
Sounds like a
embargo?
lot of political capital has been poured into this effort. How much has Cuba been impacted by the
Cuba said in 2011 that the economic damage of the U.S. embargo has topped $1 trillion in its five-decade history.
The embargo’s crippling effects on the Cuban economy prompted Raul Castro to beef up efforts to end the embargo once he took the helm in 2008.
While Cuba was sustained by a serious trading relationship with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the Cuban economy took a hard hit with the
Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.
AT: No Political Capital
Obama has PC – recent strides prove
Khaleej Times 7/1
Khaleej Times, “No lame duck, Obama shows he’s still got what it takes,” July 1, 2015, Khaleej Times, http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-articledisplay-1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2015/July/opinion_July2.xml&section=opinion/NV
Years from now, as he thinks back over his presidency, Barack Obama
is likely to remember this as one of his best
weeks. Maybe the best week. A trade bill passed in a Republican-led Congress. Massively
important Supreme Court decisions on the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. A
healing eulogy for slain black church members, toward the end of which – astonishingly, to
many of the thousands who listened at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in
Charleston, South Carolina, and the millions who watched on live TV or later on YouTube – the president led those assembled in the
singing of “Amazing Grace.”
Much of Obama’s
presidency has been a grind, during which he’s been criticized from both
political directions.
The right never liked him in the first place, and as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell famously
said during Obama’s first term, Republicans’ main priority was – not cooperating to fix a
damaged economy the new president had inherited from a Republican administration – but
working to see that Obama was not reelected. The left – enamored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other liberals –
thought he hewed too much to the political center. The tea party (especially its racist element), the powerful National Rifle Association,
“birthers,” and others mocked and reviled him.
But by Friday night, at least, the impression – or at least the imagery – had changed as the
White House was bathed in rainbow lighting, a celebration of Obama’s recent political wins
as well as the US Supreme Court’s legalising same-sex marriage for all Americans no matter
where they lived.
In his daily wrap-up Saturday morning, Politico’s Mike Allen called it “one of the most momentous news days and weeks you – or even your
children – will ever see.”
“Obama aides and former aides, who have been with him from the beginning, tell us this is the biggest week of the eight years,” Allen wrote.
After noting the two big court cases (Obamacare and gay marriage) and Obama’s powerful eulogy in Charleston “where he spoke as freely, and as
emotionally, as he ever has about race during his Presidency,” David Remnick, The New Yorker’s editor, wrote: “In
recent months
Obama has also, through executive action, made solid gains on immigration, wage
discrimination, climate change, and foreign-policy issues, including an opening, after more
than a half century of Cold War and embargo, to Cuba.”
“These accomplishments – and potential accomplishments, like a rigorous, well-regulated nuclear arrangement with Iran – will help shape the
coming election,” Remnick wrote. “In no small measure, Obama, and what he has achieved, will determine the parameters of the debate.”
Presidential legacies must be left to historians, as they have been in recent years regarding Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. And the current
reading of Obama’s accomplishments and political strength at this moment may be ephemeral.
But to journalists who write “the first rough draft of history,” it’s been a remarkable week for
the nation’s first African-American president, who’s had some major political setbacks –
including the last two congressional elections.
Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza wrote that Obama’s leading a congregation in Amazing Grace “served as the coda to Obama’s
single best week as president – a week filled with developments, both practical and symbolic, that will reverberate well beyond not only this week
or month but his entire presidency.”
NPR’s Ron Elving said Obama’s “Amazing Grace” eulogy in South Carolina, where Gov. Nikki Haley joined other Republicans (including the
state’s two US senators) in calling for removal of the Confederate battle flag from Capitol grounds, “concluded the most shining week of his
second term.”
Ken Walsh at US News & World report said, “It was one of the best weeks of President
Obama’s second term, putting to rest, at least for now, serious talk that he is becoming a lame
duck as his presidency enters its final phase.”
“Just eight months ago, people were hanging crepe on the White House, saying ‘The Obama
era is over,’” former Obama senior advisor David Axelrod told The Wall Street Journal. The last several months have
been one of the most productive periods at the White House, he said, as Obama has resolved
to “make every day count.”
In his weekend radio address on Saturday, Obama took a victory lap on what is seen as his signature legislative accomplishment, Obamacare.
“This week, after more than fifty votes in Congress to repeal or weaken this law; after a Presidential election based in part on preserving or
repealing this law; after multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, we can now say this for certain: the Affordable Care Act still
stands, it is working, and it is here to stay,” Obama said.
No doubt there will be bumps and ruts in Obama’s political road toward retirement.
“One can just as easily point to issues that remain of tremendous concern – the consequences of painting (and revising) ‘red lines’ with Syria and
the early underestimation of Daesh, among others,” The New Yorker’s Remnick writes. “But the idea that Obama would play out his Presidency,
after the political defeat of the midterm elections, as a professorial lame duck turns out to be without basis.”
Obama’s PC is higher than it’s ever been
Wilstein 6/30
Matt Wilstein, writer for Media ITE, “Obama: No, Last Week Was Not My ‘Best Week’ Ever,” June 30, 2015, Media ITE,
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-no-last-week-was-not-my-best-week-ever/NV
From the two major Supreme Court decisions that went his way to the soaring eulogy he
delivered for the Charleston victims — culminating in “Amazing Grace” — there is a general consensus that
last week was most likely the pinnacle Barack Obama’s presidency. As of Monday morning, his approval
rating was back above 50% for the first time in two years. But was it really his “best week” ever?
The president chuckled a bit when a reporter asked him that question during a joint press conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff Tuesday
afternoon. “In terms of my best week, now my best week, I will tell you, was marrying Michelle. That was a really good week,” Obama said. “Malia and Sasha
being born, excellent weeks.” He even referenced one memorable week when he scored 27 points in a basketball game.
“I’ve had some pretty good weeks in my life, I will tell you, and I’m blessed to have had those,” Obama
said. “I think last week was
gratifying,” he continued, perhaps trying to take some of the focus off of himself personally.
He cited the passage of trade legislation and the strengthening of the Affordable Care Act as
important milestones, but notably did not attempt to take any credit for the same-sex marriage victory.
“In many ways, last week was simply a culmination of a lot of work we’ve been doing since I
came into office,” Obama said. With the political capital he has built up, the president
vowed to “squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make as long as I have the
privilege of holding this office.”
AT: Thumpers
[SLOW DOWN ON THE FIRST 2 ARGUMENTS]
Their thumpers are already priced into Obama’s political planning and
subsumed by issue specifics --- our 1nc Milbank evidence says Obama has PC
and is going to spend it on Cuba.
Doesn’t apply --- we did not read a traditional political capital link. Our link
assumes the plan is a loss for Obama because Congress forces a policy on him
against his wishes which snaps his current winning streak. None of their
thumpers create the same dynamic.
This is a top priority
Laslo 7/6
Matt Laslo, has covered Congress, the courts and the White House for wlrn since 2006, “South Florida Lawmakers In Summer Push To Block
Obama's Cuba Normalization,” WLRN, http://wlrn.org/post/south-florida-lawmakers-summer-push-block-obamas-cuba-normalization/NV
President Obama’s announcement last week that the U.S. will
restore diplomatic relations with communist Cuba on
July 20 – and will open an embassy there a few days after – is angering South Florida lawmakers.
Their options
to stop the Administration are limited. But they’re moving against Obama’s new engagement policy
nonetheless, and it’s shaping up as one of the summer’s big political battles .
The rhetoric from the Cuban-American congressional caucus is rising with the humid temperature in Washington, D.C.
“It is very clear that President
matter what,”
Obama, for him it’s a personal goal to normalize relations with Cuba, no
says Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo of Miami.
Re-establishing diplomatic ties, which were severed in 1961, is the first big part of Obama’s
plan to normalize relations with Cuba, which he announced last December.
Before the agreement was reached to open mutual embassies this month, the U.S. took Cuba off
the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism – and that infuriated the caucus. Veteran South Florida
Republican Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart accuses the Administration of caving to demands from Cuba’s Castro regime, while getting nothing in exchange.
AT: Iran Thumper
Iran is not a loss for Obama
PressTV 4/15 – (PressTV, “Iran bill passage not defeat, senior White House official says”, PressTV, 4/15/2015,
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2015/04/15/406453/Iran-bill-passage-not-defeat-for-Obama)//MBB
A senior White House official says the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s approval of
bipartisan legislation to allow Congress to review a nuclear agreement with Iran is not a
defeat for
the
Obama
administration.
US President Barack Obama
had threatened to veto an initial version of the legislation, but changed
his mind after some changes were made to the controversial bill.
White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told MSNBC network on Tuesday night it
was not a loss for the administration.
She did not acknowledge that Secretary of State John Kerry had been lobbying against the bill that was originally drafted by Democrat Senator Robert
Menendez and Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Menendez stepped down early this month as ranking Democrat on the
Senate panel in the wake of his indictment on corruption charges.
“Secretary Kerry was doing what he has been doing consistently,” she said, “which is briefing the [Capitol] Hill, giving them classified briefings, touching as
many of the members as possible because it’s important that they understand what we’re trying to accomplish here.”
The bill was unanimously approved on Tuesday after its text was changed following negotiations between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob
Corker, who introduced it, and the committee's new ranking member, Democrat Senator Ben Cardin.
According to the bill, Obama should submit the final nuclear deal for congressional review and he would not lift Congress-mandated sanctions against Iran
during the review period.
The only significant change of the new bill, dubbed the Iran Nuclear Amendment Review Act of 2015, is the review period that is shortened from 60 days to
52 days.
There is an initial review period of 30 days and 12 more days would be added if Congress passes a bill to disapprove the deal with 60 votes and sends it to
Obama.
If the president vetoes the bill, there would be an additional 10 days added to allow Congress
an opportunity to override the veto.
The revised version also eases some other objections the Obama administration had raised.
AT: Infrastructure Thumper
Infrastructure doesn’t thump – its not a loss for Obama because there is
bipartisan support – infrastructure is one of the rare areas of compromise
Sargent 7/8/15 - Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated
reporting” from the left. He joined the Post in early 2009, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer. (Greg,
“Breaking: Congress starts thinking about maybe funding our infrastructure”, The Washington Post, July 8, 2015,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/08/breaking-congress-starts-thinking-about-maybe-funding-our-infrastructure///DM)
Don’t look now, but there
are new signs today that Congress might finally be thinking seriously
about funding our infrastructure. Even more startling, lawmakers in both parties are considering
ways to do this
that involve — gasp! — raising new revenues, which, let’s face it, is really an outlandish thing to ask for in exchange for upgrading
our infrastructure into the 21st century. In approximately four weeks, the Highway Trust Fund is set to run out of money. The Obama administration has
warned that if this happens, the Department of Transportation will have to stop making payments to state governments around the country for infrastructure
projects, potentially hurting the recovery, and advocates for more such investments have warned that states are already putting construction projects on hold.
The obvious long term solution to this problem — and a long-term fix is what we need — is to raise the gas tax. But lawmakers in both parties are refusing to
do this, even though it hasn’t happened for over two decades.
GOP leaders have signaled that they do want to figure
out how to keep highway funding going . But with conservative groups that want to devolve infrastructure to the states raising a
fuss, it has been unclear whether GOP leaders are willing to support any form of new revenues to pay for it. Today Senators Rob Portman and
Chuck Schumer
rolled out a new bipartisan plan to refund the HTF , albeit only in the short term, via corporate tax reform:
Two top tax writers on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday released a bipartisan tax proposal that includes an option to use revenue generated by
overhauling parts of the corporate tax code to help pay for transportation projects despite warnings from Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch that he
does not want to raise taxes to pay for a highway bill… The proposal is now likely to become part of the debate over how Congress should pay for a six-year
reauthorization of the federal highway program, an issue that will be at the top of the congressional agenda this month. While Republican leaders have earlier
objected to the idea of using one-time funds raised when companies bring their money back into the country as part of an overhaul of corporate tax rules, the
bipartisan nature of the proposal from Schumer and Portman could give the idea some life. The new proposal builds on previous ones released by both
Congressional Republicans and the White House that would overhaul tax rules for international corporations and bring in a one-time burst in revenues that
could be used to temporarily replenish the HTF.
The idea picked up some encouraging words today from the
White House and from Paul Ryan , the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The proposal could
“potentially unlock a solution to our highway trust fund shortfall,” Ryan said. Obviously there are reasons for
extreme pessimism that Congress could finish something like this in four short weeks, particularly since a whole lot of lobbyists are likely to get very worked up
the fund that has the support of both
Republicans and Democrats, Obama and Paul Ryan included. Meanwhile, another glimmer of
optimism from the Senate Finance Committee could be spotted in the series of bipartisan
reports from the committee’s working groups on how the tax system might be overhauled.
One particularly interesting nugget: In the report from the Finance Committee’s
infrastructure working group, lawmakers concede that corporate repatriation — of the sort
that we would get from tax reform — just isn’t a long term solution. Instead, the report suggests a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax, which
about it. But still: right now, it’s unclear whether there is any other idea out there to replenish
generally taxes users based on how many miles they travel, might be a long term solution to the infrastructure spending problem. “A VMT has the potential to
improve the efficiency of highway financing because the tax can be calibrated closely to the costs that vehicles impose in terms of road damage and
congestion,” the report says. Michael O’Brien, a spokesman for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, which is lobbying for more infrastructure
spending, tells me he’s “particularly encouraged” by the inclusion of a VMT, because it suggests growing “bipartisan and bicameral interest” in funding
infrastructure. “It’s time for our elected leaders to step up and finally develop a long-term solution to our infrastructure needs, not another stopgap measure
that saps our economy of certainty and further delays our ability to build a 21st Century infrastructure,” O’Brien says. What’s particularly striking about all of
this is that for months, we were told that funding our
infrastructure was one of the very few areas where
compromise between the White House and the new GOP Congress would be possible . After
all, infrastructure funding should constitute some of the lowest-hanging fruit, politically and
ideologically speaking, that one can imagine. Many lawmakers in both parties, and a large
range of outside groups on both sides, want it to happen for the long term good of the
country. Yet the idea that this could actually happen seems borderline hallucinatory.
AT: Prison Reform Thumper
Everyone supports prison reform --- costs absolutely no political capital
Collins and Richmond 7/13 --- Collins has represented Georgia’s 9th Congressional District since 2013. He sits on the Judiciary
and the Rules committees. Richmond has represented Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District since 2011. He sits on the Homeland Security and the Judiciary
committees (Doug Collins and Cedric Richmond, 7/13/15, “Criminal justice system needs to change”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/judicial/247564-criminal-justice-system-needs-to-change)//Jmoney
Republicans and Democrats don’t always see eye to eye, but there is clear common ground when
it comes to the need for criminal justice reform .
For too long, when it comes to public safety and criminal justice, we have attributed success to the number of people we place behind bars. While this
it has led to an explosion in both the prison
population and associated costs. Research shows that we have crossed a point of diminishing returns,
where new prison cells have caused a reduction in public safety. For many low-risk, non-violent offenders, incarceration
approach has not necessarily made our neighborhoods and communities safer,
actually increases the likelihood of re-offending upon their release. The current policy has led to families being torn apart, state and federal budgets being
stretched thin, and a generation of able-bodied and potentially productive citizens being lost in the system.
Locking up as many people as possible for as long as possible is neither the most effective means of ensuring public safety nor a fiscally responsible strategy.
Our criminal justice system has shifted its focus from one that metes out rational punishment to those who threaten public safety, to one that seeks to
criminalize every offense. The federal government has added over 2,000 federal offenses in the past 25 years alone. Between 1980 and 2013, the federal
imprisonment rate jumped 518%. During the same period, prison spending rose 595 percent. Taxpayers now spend nearly as much on federal prisons as they
spent on the entire Justice Department in 1980 – a whopping $6.9 billion. Justice has no price tag, but emptying our wallets to incarcerate for the sake of
incarceration is a disservice to the American taxpayer and society at large.
Paying these rising prison costs means shortchanging other public safety priorities, like funding federal prosecutors and public defenders. In 1980, the Bureau
of Prisons consumed just 14 percent of the Justice Department budget. Since then, that proportion has nearly doubled, to 23 percent, and that number
continues to rise. Unless we address this issue, continued growth in prison spending will further erode support for law enforcement, state and local justice
grants, and services aimed at minimizing recidivism rates.
Fortunately, the
need for reform has been widely recognized across the country. Since 2007, two dozen
states – from Georgia and South Carolina to California and Oregon– have adopted comprehensive,
evidence-driven reforms that protect public safety while holding offenders accountable and reigning
in prison costs. Their successful formulas focus limited prison space on violent and repeat offenders
while strengthening alternative sanctions for lower-level offenders. The result has been a decrease in both crime and
incarceration rates. This shouldn’t come as a surprise as research has shown that simply tacking on years in prison does not lead to increased public safety.
We believe Congress
can take the lessons learned at the state level and write a similar success story on a
national scale. That’s why we’re proud to stand behind Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) to introduce the SAFE
Justice Act – unique, bipartisan legislation that puts lessons learned in the states to work at the
federal level.
This represents Congress’s first attempt at system-wide, comprehensive reform, addressing how we sentence, how
we determine prison release, and how we supervise offenders upon their return to the community. Federal sentencing and corrections is a sprawling system;
without attacking all facets at the same time, we can’t be assured of results.
Reform is bipartisan
Kaplan 7/13 --- political reporter for CBSNews (Rebecca Kaplan, 7/13/15, “Obama commutes sentences for 46 nonviolent drug offenders”, CBS
News, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-commutes-sentences-for-46-nonviolent-drug-offenders/)//Jmoney
Criminal justice reform has emerged as a rare issue uniting politicians on the right and left.
The Corrections Act, introduced by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, aims to shorten
sentences for low-risk federal inmates while also reducing their chances of returning to prison.
A handful of liberals and conservatives -- including Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Democratic Sens.
Dick Durbin of Illinois and Cory Booker of New Jersey -- have introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act. Two 2016 Republican
candidates, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have also signed on to the bill, which would give judges more discretion in sentencing those
convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.
Paul and Booker have also introduced a bill crafted to complement other sentencing reform efforts,
called the Redeem Act (the "Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment" Act) to reduce recidivism.
At the federal level, the Obama administration has attempted to reform the criminal justice system without the help of Congress. In 2013, Attorney General
Eric Holder announced a change in Justice Department policy to avoid draconian mandatory minimum sentencing rules. The department now charges lowlevel, non-violent drug offenders with offenses that don't impose mandatory minimum sentences.
Prison reform is bipartisan-doesn’t cause PC
Berman 7/10 --- (Russell Berman, 7/10/15, “Is this Obama’s moment for criminal justice reform?”, Government executive,
http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/07/obamas-moment-criminal-justice-reform/117481/)//Jmoney
The question House and Senate lawmakers are now wrestling with is the scope of legislation. Proposals
in the Senate have tended to
focus on narrow aspects of criminal-justice reform. The Smarter Sentencing Act, introduced by Lee and Senator Dick Durbin of
Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, would reduce mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug crimes while increasing
penalties for drug offenses linked to sexual abuse or terrorism. Another bill from Senators John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, and Sheldon Whitehouse,
a Democrat of Rhode Island, would tackle so-called re-entry reform. Based on successful programs in their home states, the
proposal would allow inmates to earn time off their sentences by participating in programs, such as
prison jobs, designed to reduce recidivism.
In the House, criminal-justice reform advocates (including Koch Industries and the ACLU) have rallied around the broader
bill authored by Sensenbrenner and Representative Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat. The SAFE Justice Act addresses
both mandatory minimums and recidivism programs, but it also includes a raft of other changes aimed at beefing up probation programs, preventing wrongful
convictions by offering more protections for poor defendants, and making it easier for elderly inmates to secure early release. The bill also addresses what
advocates call the “over-federalization” of crime, in which offenses that could be prosecuted in state court are often transferred to federal jurisdiction, where
the penalties are stiffer. Sensenbrenner said the proposal emerged out a task force that he and Scott led that held 10 hearings over the last two years and
studied many reform efforts that have worked at the state level.
For Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, the
sheer breadth of the proposal is something of a watershed
moment in the 20-year effort to roll back tough-on-crime laws that many Republicans and
Democrats now concede went too far. “We just have not seen this level of bipartisanship in a long
time, if ever,” Sloan told me. “People are now looking back at those bills and saying, ‘It doesn’t matter what
party you were from: We made mistakes. We went in the direction of toughness and finality rather
than fairness and reliability and getting it right.’”
In Congress, not even consensus is a guarantee of success. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, advocates for comprehensive immigration reform were never
more confident that their moment had come, and despite the passage of legislation in the Senate, the effort stalled out in the House. Neither Speaker John
Boehner nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have said much either way about criminal-justice reform, but the congressional middle men—Judiciary
Committee Chairmen Charles Grassley in the Senate or Bob Goodlatte in the House—are more traditional law-and-order Republicans who have been resistant
to the issue in the past.
There are indications, however, that at least Grassley
may be shifting. In March, he delivered a lengthy speech
denouncing efforts to reduce mandatory minimums, mocking supporters for promoting the idea “that poor, innocent, mere drug
possessors are crowding our prisons.” In recent days, his office has confirmed reports by Politico and BuzzFeed that he is
working with Democrats on legislation that could include changes to mandatory minimum sentences.
In the House, Goodlatte has set up a separate, “step-by-step” process for considering the issue over the next several months. That’s ominous news for
advocates, since it’s the same process Goodlatte used to effectively slow-walk immigration reform to death in 2013. Sensenbrenner, for example, criticized the
chairman’s intention to split up his bill into multiple pieces. “This is a way to make sure all of this fails,” he told me.
If the failure of immigration reform is a cautionary tale for advocates of criminal-justice reform, then the more recent success of legislation reining in the NSA
could be a roadmap. The
coalition of Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans is similar, and it is lead
in part by Sensenbrenner, a 36-year veteran of the House, it kept gathering support until it became impossible for
the resistant party leadership to ignore. That effort took more than a year, however, and with the presidential
campaign threatening to interrupt the bipartisan comity that’s broken out on Capitol Hill, there’s a
reason President Obama needs lawmakers to move quickly. If he wants to notch one more lasting victory for his domestic
legacy, he might only have a few more months to get it done.
Bipartisan support
PEB 7-11 (Post editorial board for the NY Post; “Obama is facing the prison facts”; 7/11/2015; http://nypost.com/2015/07/11/obama-is-facing-theprison-facts/) //Jmoney
President Obama this week will join the bipartisan push to reform the US criminal-justice system, calling
for lower federal sentences for
nonviolent crimes. It’s an issue dear to his heart, in part because about 60 percent of the 2.2 million
Americans now incarcerated are black or Hispanic. We’ll see the president — and raise. Because the size of the
prison population is indeed a national scandal — but while there are changes to be made in the
prisons and the courts, the necessary work goes much, much further. Obama knows this — but it’s his own
party, and the special interests who control it, that stand in the way of seeing that fewer Americans wind up primed
for prison. Yes, it’s mainly Republicans who resist sentencing reform. But that’s been changing, big
time . Just last month, the president remarked, “We’ve seen some really interesting leadership from some unlikely Republican
legislators very sincerely concerned about making progress.” That’s why there’s bipartisan legislation for him to get -behind.
It’s a live topic in the GOP presidential race, too — a top issue for Sen. Rand Paul and others. And Texas ex-Gov. Rick Perry, in his first big policy speech last
week, noted, “Nobody gets Texans confused as being soft on crime. I believe in consequences for criminal behavior. But I also believe in second chances and
human redemption.” He had facts to back him up: “In 2014, Texas had its lowest crime rate since 1968. At the same time, we closed three prisons and
reformed our sentencing laws. “Too
many Texans were going to prison for nonviolent drug offenses. And once
they got out of prison, many found they couldn’t get a job ­because they had a criminal record.” These
pages have a long record of being as tough on crime as any Texan, but “tough” works better when it’s also “smart.” Everyone’s a winner
when crime and prison time both fall.
In that context, note that the NYPD’s “Broken Windows” policing hasn’t just made New
York far safer. It has also drastically cut how many New Yorkers get sent to prison — by 69 percent from 1992 to 2013.
Top Priority / Embassy Key to Relations
***note when prepping file --- this evidence also says Obama will push for
expanded relations beyond just new embassy
Cuba is a top priority and Obama will push for expanded relations --- reopening
embassies will significantly end hostilities
Pace 7/6
Julia Pace, White House Correspondent for Associated Press, “AP source: US, Cuba to announce plan to open embassies,” July 7, 2015, Fox
Carolina, http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/29446037/ap-source-us-cuba-to-announce-plan-to-open-embassies/NV
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama
will announce Wednesday that the U.S. and Cuba have finalized
an agreement to reopen embassies in each other's capitals, a major step in ending hostilities
between the Cold War foes , a senior administration official said.
The U.S. and Cuba have been negotiating the reestablishment of embassies following the
historic December announcement that they would move to restore ties after a half-century of animosity. The U.S. embassy in Havana
is expected to open in July.
For Obama, ending the U.S. freeze with Cuba is central to his foreign policy legacy
as he nears the end
of his presidency. Obama has long touted the value of direct engagement with global foes and has argued that the U.S. embargo on the communist island just
90 miles south of Florida was ineffective.
The official insisted on anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter ahead of the president.
The White House said Obama will deliver a statement on Cuba from the Rose Garden on Wednesday morning. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is in
Vienna for nuclear negotiations with Iran, is also expected to speak about the embassy openings.
Kerry has said previously that he would travel to Cuba for an embassy opening.
Cuba's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday evening that it would meet with U.S. Interests Section chief Jeffrey DeLaurentis on Wednesday morning to receive a
message from President Obama about reopening embassies.
The U.S. cut off diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961 after Fidel Castro's revolution. The U.S. spent
decades trying to either actively overthrow the Cuban government or isolate the island, including toughening the economic embargo first imposed by President
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Since the late 1970s, the United States and Cuba have operated diplomatic missions called interests sections in each other's capitals. The missions are
technically under the protection of Switzerland, and do not enjoy the same status as full embassies.
While the opening of embassies marks a major milestone in the thaw between the U.S. and Cuba, significant issues remain as the countries look to normalize
relations. Among them: talks on human rights; demands for compensation for confiscated American properties in Havana and damages to Cuba from the
embargo; and possible cooperation on law enforcement, including the touchy topic of U.S. fugitives sheltering in Havana.
Obama also wants Congress to repeal the economic embargo on Cuba, though he faces
resistance from Republicans and some Democrats. Those opposed to normalizing relations with Cuba say Obama is
prematurely rewarding a regime that engages in serious human rights abuses.
The president also will face strong opposition in Congress to spending any taxpayer dollars
on building or refurbishing an embassy in Havana. Congress would have to approve any
administration request to spend money on an embassy.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said in a statement that opening a U.S. embassy in Cuba "will do nothing to help the Cuban people and is just another trivial
attempt for President Obama to go legacy shopping."
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the opening of embassies was part of the administration's
"common sense approach to Cuba." However, he called for Cuba to recognize that it is out of step with the international community on human rights.
"Arrests and detentions of dissidents must cease and genuine political pluralism is long overdue," Cardin said in a statement.
Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro met in April during a regional summit, marking the first time U.S. and Cuban leaders have met in person since 1958.
For Obama, the embassy announcements come amid what the White House sees as one of
the strongest stretches of his second term. He scored major legislative and legal victories last
week , with Congress giving him fast-track authority for an Asia-Pacific free trade deal and the Supreme Court upholding a key provision of his health
care law.
The court also ruled in favor of gay marriage nationwide, an outcome Obama supported.
Embassy Key to Relations ***
Opening diplomatic relations and embassies is a critical step in full
normalization of relations
Levy, 7/2/15 --- Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate, University of Denver (Arturo Lopez, “Embassies in Havana and Washington: A Victory of
Diplomacy and Democracy,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/embassies-in-havana-and-washington-a-victory-of-diplomacy-anddemocracy_b_7708898.html, JMP)
On July 1st, the governments of the
U nited S tates and Cuba announced an agreement to open diplomatic
relations and embassies in Washington and Havana. This is a major watershed in the road
to full normalization of relations between the two states and the two societies. This is also a
major win for democracy because the steps taken by Presidents Obama and Castro gives voice to
overwhelming majorities in both societies in favor of peaceful and constructive U.S.-Cuba
relations .
Let's get history straight. The U.S.-Cuba opening of December 17 was not the product of a few "Johnny come lately" businessmen and lobbyists who recently
joined the anti-embargo cause. It was the victory of the Cuban people's nationalist resistance against five decades of an embargo that still is counterproductive,
immoral and illegal according to international law. In 1996, the lawyers of the State Department warned Secretary Warren Christopher that the Helms-Burton
law would be damaging to U.S relations with its allies, its standing in international law and the promotion of democracy in Cuba.
Together with the Cuban nationalists, there were multiple constituencies in the United States winning the grassroots battle for a change of policy since the
1990s. Particular mention deserves the religious groups of the National Council of Churches, the Black Congressional Caucus, the American left and the
Cuban American moderates and progressives who took their cause into the heart of misinformed constituencies indoctrinated in the vision of Cuba as a U.S.
national security threat. Cuban-Americans like Carlos Muniz and Luciano Nieves paid for their devotion to good relations between the two countries with their
life. After the end of the Clinton Administration, the pro-embargo position went on retreat among libertarians, farmers and business groups in general. The
processes of economic reform and political liberalization launched by Raul Castro's government since 2009 opened the appetites of the American business
community. By 2014 politics began to align with a long overdue policy change serving U.S. national interest.
Normalcy is a destiny but normalization is a journey. After restoring diplomatic relations, Cuba and the United States need to address important claims about
the damages caused by the embargo-blockade to Cuba and the nationalization of American properties without compensation by Fidel Castro's government in
the early sixties. It is important to have a conscience with regard to these issues but not allow them to paralyze the agenda of normalization. Flag
raising acts and new diplomatic missions are more than symbolic. They open the gates for
substantive relations of respect between the two nations.
Embassies key
Baker and Davis 6/30
Peter Baker, White House Correspondent for the New York Times, Julie Hirschfield Davis, writer for the New York Times, " U.S. and Cuba
Agree to Reopen Embassies, Officials Say,” June 30, 2015, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/world/americas/us-and-cuba-toannounce-plan-to-reopen-embassies.html?_r=1/NV
WASHINGTON — The
United States and Cuba will announce an agreement on Wednesday to
reopen embassies in each other’s capitals, formally restoring diplomatic relations more than a halfcentury after they were ruptured, according to administration officials.
The agreement represents the most tangible outcome to date of President Obama’s decision to
reach out to the island nation and end its decades of isolation. Mr. Obama declared in December that he
wanted to resume ties with Havana, and the two sides have spent the last six months in painstaking
negotiations to work out details of the new embassies.
Mr. Obama will announce plans to reopen the embassies in the Rose Garden on Wednesday morning. Secretary of State John Kerry will also
discuss the plans in Vienna, where he is negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity in
advance of the formal announcement. Mr. Kerry plans to travel to Havana for the actual opening of the embassy on July 22.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba in January 1961 just before leaving office in response to increased
tensions with the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro. A trade embargo imposed by Mr. Eisenhower was then toughened by his successors,
and the two neighbors have spent more than 50 years at odds.
The United States already has a limited diplomatic outpost in Havana, called an interests section, in the same seven-story building on the
Malecón waterfront that served as the embassy until 1961. After so many years as a small presence in a hostile country, the building is worn down.
The State Department has said it needs $6.6 million to retrofit it to make it suitable as an embassy.
But some Republicans who oppose the outreach to Cuba, calling it the appeasement of a dictatorial government, have been working to bar any
financing for such work. Critics may also try to block the confirmation of a new ambassador once Mr. Obama makes a nomination.
The United States has a career diplomat running the interests section, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, who could serve as the acting ambassador pending a
permanent appointment. Mr. DeLaurentis, who holds the rank of ambassador, has served at the United Nations, as a deputy assistant secretary of
state and in Havana as the political-economic section chief.
Cuba has an interests section in a stately manor in the Adams Morgan section of Washington
that could be upgraded. In May, Cuba announced that its banking services for that office
had been restored, a precondition to reopening a full embassy.
In recent weeks, Cuba
also repaved the driveway, repainted the fence and erected a large flagpole
on the front lawn to await the formal raising of its flag.
The reopening of embassies would remove Cuba from a dwindling list of countries
completely ostracized by the United States. The only other nations with which Washington
has no diplomatic relations are Bhutan, Iran and North Korea, although there are other countries with which it has relations but
no embassies.
Mr. Obama has made the détente with Cuba a central foreign policy goal of his final two years in office, along with the deal with Iran to curb its
nuclear program. While campaigning for president in 2008, he asserted that the United States needed to reach out to its enemies, and those two
agreements would represent the culmination of that philosophy.
Critics argue that Mr. Obama is too eager to accommodate countries that do not share American interests or values. By reopening diplomatic
relations with Havana, they say, Mr. Obama will be empowering the government still run by Mr. Castro’s brother, President Raúl Castro, without
obtaining any assurances of democratic reforms or improvements to human rights.
In a letter to Mr. Kerry in June, after the administration removed Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terror, Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American
Republican from Florida and a candidate for president, vowed to oppose the confirmation of any ambassador until issues like human rights, fugitive terrorists
and billions of dollars of outstanding claims were resolved.
It is “important that pro-democracy activities not be sacrificed in the name of ‘diplomacy’ just so that we can change the name of a building from
‘Interest Section’ to ‘Embassy,’ ” Mr. Rubio wrote.
Cuban and American officials have been negotiating for six months over the diplomatic implications of opening embassies. United States
negotiators demanded assurances that American diplomats at an embassy in Havana would be able to move freely around the country and speak
with anyone, including opponents of the government. Cuban officials, who have frequently accused the United States of working to undermine
the government by aiding dissidents, had resisted the request.
Proponents called the establishment of embassies a vital phase in the thaw, one that should
be followed by Congress easing travel and commercial restrictions against Havana.
“Opening embassies in Washington and Havana is an important step toward the day when
Americans can make their own decisions on where they travel, and our businesses can
compete with the rest of the world,”
pressing for an end to the embargo.
said James Williams, the president of Engage Cuba, a nonprofit advocacy group
Internal Links / Impacts
2nc Russia Impact
***note when prepping file --- this evidence is also in the 2nc uniqueness block.
Obama’ regained power is changing political calculations. This perception is
independently key to deter China and Russia.
Japan Times, 7/6/15 (Editorial, “Obama a lame duck? Think again,”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/07/06/editorials/obama-a-lame-duck-think-again/#.VZqgavmGPD9, JMP)
The power of the president of the United States weakens considerably from the beginning of his second term. The mandate gained by re-election quickly
dissipates as Washington begins to focus on the process of selecting his successor. The
second mid-term election, which typically rewards
the slide to irrelevance. In the case of Barack Obama, the
conventional wisdom is that he is biding his time until he leaves, fighting a rear guard battle against a determined
the party that does not occupy the White House, deepens
opposition, desperate to consolidate and protect his legacy.
The conventional wisdom is wrong.
Recent events have confirmed to the U.S.
public, lawmakers and the rest of the world that Obama remains a
powerful figure , able to move the levers of government as he desires and to rouse public
passions. He remains a force to be reckoned with. His presidency is by no means over.
Obama made clear at the beginning of 2014 that he would not be sidelined. He reminded Congress that he “had a pen and a phone” and he was ready to use
both to push his agenda. The most prominent actions he has taken include an executive order to defer the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants,
opening negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba and vetoing the first bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that would force the
commencement of construction of the controversial Keystone pipeline.
Each move triggered outrage, protests and countermeasures by his opponents. Undaunted, Obama pressed on, and
last month he won some
of his biggest victories yet. In a key decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Obama’s most important legacy, his health care
reforms. That ruling has two important implications. First, it means that the law will stay on the books for another two years, during which more Americans
will benefit from the reforms and will make it virtually impossible to repeal should a GOP candidate claim the White House in the 2016 election. Second, the
legal basis of the ruling was such that it will require a congressional vote to repeal the law; it cannot be “reinterpreted” by a future administration in ways that
gut its intent.
The Supreme Court gave the president a second victory days later when it recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The president has been a
staunch supporter of LGBT rights and this decision gives him a big domestic boost. Equally significantly, it puts opponents on the defensive; Obama can use
their rejection of this decision to discredit their opposition on other issues.
A third important victory came with congressional approval of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the vital
prerequisite to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the key economic initiative of his foreign policy toward Asia, as well as the
TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that is also under negotiation and likely to conclude during Obama’s term. This was a bitter fight,
primarily against members of his own party, and
the president’s readiness to take on fellow Democrats is a sign
that he is still focused on his agenda , not merely that of his party.
On the foreign policy front, the announcement that the U.S and Cuba are ready to resume
diplomatic ties and reopen embassies in each country is a long overdue development and
another bold stroke. If the Iranian nuclear negotiations proceed to an agreement that both sides can accept, then Obama will have transformed
relations with two long-standing adversaries and, potentially, permanently altered dynamics in two vitally important regions.
The announcement that Russian President Vladimir
Putin has twice reached out to Obama in the
past week is an indication that world leaders are aware of his new
standing and authority. Putin can smell weakness and exploits it. His
readiness to engage Obama suggests that he understands that a new
dynamic is at work in Washington.
In Beijing, Chinese officials are now preparing for the September visit of President Xi
Jinping to the U.S. Their determination to ensure that meeting is a success, coupled with
growing discontent in Asia over assertive Chinese behavior in the South China Sea, gives
Obama additional leverage in that relationship .
There is a final critical factor that cannot be estimated, nor can it be overlooked: the Obama image
and his rhetorical gifts. For all the pomp and circumstance, the power of the U.S. president both at home
and abroad is limited . The president, no matter who he is, cannot direct the economy nor bring peace to the Middle East. He does,
however, occupy a bully pulpit, and from that post he can bring his moral stature to bear on
problems, domestic and foreign. As has been made repeatedly clear in recent weeks — speaking in Selma on the 50th anniversary of the
march there and again in Charleston, South Carolina at the funeral of the slain pastor Clementa Pinckney — Obama has a singular gift to rise above the noise,
raise his nation and focus its attention. That alone is reason why Obama remains a powerful leader, even as his term winds to a close.
Perceptions of U.S. weakness spur Russian aggressionism and war
Auslin 14
Michael Auslin, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, “Why Did Russia Invade Ukraine? Because The West Is Weak,” March
3, 2014, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/03/why-did-russia-invade-ukraine-because-the-west-is-weak/NV
This is the lesson the liberal world needs to relearn, a quarter-century after the fall of the Berlin Wall: none of its choices, be it military cuts,
inaction, or diplomatic posturing, happens in a vacuum. While
perceptions of Western irresolve or weakness
necessarily create conditions of instability by themselves, their real danger is that they
don’t
make aggressive opportunism seem a
more attractive path for revanchists like Putin or revisionist powers like Beijing .
The toxic brew of negative perceptions of Western/liberal military capability and political
will is rapidly undermining the post-1945 order around the world. Reduced military budgets,
global perceptions of American and European weakness, the outright dismissal of presidential redlines, and memories of
total inaction like during the 2008 Georgian invasion or Syrian civil war have set the stage for future opportunism.
More than one commentator has noted the similarities between Hitler in 1938 and Putin in
2014. Like Hitler did, Putin is playing a weak hand, though it is relatively stronger than the
object of his aggression, and even token opposition by the West could cause him to fold. We now know that Hitler would have
pulled his troops out of the Sudetenland in the face of any British or French opposition. Thus,
what may matter most to
global stability is the reaction of the West, and in the case of inaction, it
abets opportunistic aggression.
A world in which dissatisfied powers seek to redraw old maps or restore national “honor” will be
immeasurably more dangerous when they correctly gauge that the West can offer only moral
outrage and little else. Neither China nor Russia may be so reckless as to act aggressively
without any cause, but there are myriad “causes” out there, many of which we dismiss
because they don’t fit our definition of rationality or national interest, and onto which Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and
others can latch.
Policymakers and analysts too little take account of the poisonous connection between perceptions of Western credibility and the festering
disputes that can be used as a casus belli for those seeking advantage. Crimea
has been a sore spot for Russia (in recent
history) since Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine in 1954. It is hard to imagine a
scenario whereby Vladimir Putin would be able to get away with fomenting a crisis out of whole
cloth. But, as he showed in Georgia, he will respond with military alacrity when given the
opportunity . Western capitals, for their part, chose not to believe that he would be so reckless as to press his advantage in Ukraine as
forcefully as he has, in no small part because they have few options for opposing him.
One can only assume that China, Iran, and North Korea are watching Crimea just as closely as Putin watched Washington’s reactions to East and
South China Sea territorial disputes, Pyongyang’s nuclear provocations, and Syria’s civil war. Putin knows that fewer than 70,000 U.S.
military personnel are currently stationed in Europe, and many of those are support positions. Western European
countries, meanwhile, have shrunk their militaries to the point where they are essentially home defense forces.
The question the Western and liberal world must face is whether it is willing to surrender the
coming decades to increasing uncertainty and insecurity. How much will it accommodate and accept changes to the
global order? Ongoing weakness will only abet more and drastic change. Putin will not re-form the Soviet Union
overnight, but history is a long-run thing, and taking Crimea today and maybe eastern
Ukraine next week is just the opening act. Beijing may not be driven by ideology, but successfully controlling disputed
islets throughout Asia could be the precursor to larger changes to regional power patterns. How many decades before the West (and by extension
its liberal allies in Asia) feel truly threatened?
Maybe the bottom line for future Western governments is a paraphrase of Trotsky: you may not be interested in the world, but the world is
interested in you.
US – Russia war causes extinction
Helfand and Pastore 14
Ira Helfand, Co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, John Pastore, previously the President of Physicians for
Social Responsibility, “Dr. Ira Helfand & Dr. John O. Pastore: Nuclear doom lurks in U.S. faceoff with Russia over Ukraine,” August 6, 2014,
GazetteNet.com, http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13038993-95/dr-ira-helfand-dr-john-o-pastore-nuclear-doom-lurks-in-us-faceoff/NV
NORTHAMPTON — As
we mark the anniversary of the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, events in Europe, both current and historical, underline how great a danger
nuclear weapons still pose to our national security.
One hundred years ago this month, Europe stumbled into World War I, a conflict that no one wanted but which no one was able to stop. Before it
was over 16 million were dead, the world had learned the horrors of chemical warfare and the old order in Europe had been destroyed. The events
of August 1914 serve as frightening cautionary tale of how conflict can spin out of control.
Today we are witness to another unexpected war in Europe. We all hope that the fighting in
Ukraine will not lead to a broader war, but the conflict there between the U.S.-backed
government in Kiev and separatists backed by Russia is fraught with danger. For 25 years we have
been assured that we no longer had to worry about war between the nuclear super powers. The current crisis puts the lie to these assurances:
War between the U.S. and Russia remains a real possibility, and as long as both sides
possess large nuclear arsenals — nearly 15,000 nuclear warheads between them — the use of
nuclear weapons remains a real possibility as well.
A large-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would be a disaster beyond
imagining. A 2002 study by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 Russian warheads got
through to targets in U.S. cities, 75 to 100 million people would die in the first half hour. In
addition, the entire economic infrastructure of the country would be destroyed, and it is likely
that the vast majority of the U.S. population would die in the months following the attack from
starvation, epidemic disease, exposure and radiation sickness. The
U.S. counterattack would cause similar
destruction in Russia.
But these
local effects are only part of the story. The firestorms generated by these nuclear
explosions would loft enormous amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere causing
catastrophic global climate disruption. If all of the 3,100 weapons allowed to the U.S. and Russia when the New START
treaty is fully implemented in 2017 were used, temperatures around the world would drop an average of 8
degrees Celsius to levels not seen since the last ice age; food production would plummet and
the vast majority of the human race would starve. Recent studies have shown that even a very limited nuclear war, one
involving just 100 small, Hiroshima-sized bombs, less than 0.03 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenals, would cause enough climate disruption to
trigger a worldwide famine that would put more than 2 billion people at risk.
The use of a small portion of our nuclear arsenal against targets far away from the U.S.
would trigger this global catastrophe even if our adversaries failed to drop a single warhead
on us.
These weapons must truly be seen as suicide bombs and those who possess them as suicide bombers.
Given this extraordinary danger it is essential we seek to defuse the crisis in Ukraine and bring about a negotiated settlement. It is even more
urgent we move as quickly as possible to eliminate the nuclear arsenals of the world, so that future crises — and there will be future crises — do
not pose a similar existential threat to human civilization.
Some might argue that precisely because of the danger of future conflict, the U.S. and other
nuclear powers need to retain their nuclear arsenals to “deter” their adversaries. But the history of
the Cold War has shown that we have avoided nuclear war not because “deterrence” worked but because we have been extraordinarily lucky.
Hoping for continued good luck is not an acceptable national security policy.
In December most of the governments of the world will meet in Vienna for the third in a series of international conferences on the humanitarian
consequences of nuclear war. The U.S. boycotted the first two meetings out of a fear that they would lead to a treaty banning the possession and
use of nuclear weapons. We should not be afraid of such a treaty. Rather, the U.S. should embrace such a dramatic initiative designed to pressure
the nuclear weapons states to negotiate an agreement which will provide for the verifiable, enforceable elimination of their nuclear arsenals. And
we should start by indicating that we will attend the Vienna meeting and renew our commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons.
2nc China Impact
China is rapidly increasing its influence in Latin America – US relations is key to
combat that
Fontevecchia 15
Agustino Fontevecchia, Staff Writer for Forbes, “Obama Is Using Cuba To Counter Russia, Iran, And China's Growing Influence In Latin
America,” April 16, 2015, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/04/16/obama-is-using-cuba-to-counter-russia-iran-and-chinasgrowing-influence-in-latin-america/NV
The most eagerly expected moment of the VII Summit of the Americas in Panama last week was the symbolic handshake between Barack Obama
and Raul Castro, leaders of two countries separated by decades of confrontation. While
Cuba was on the top of the “to-do”
list for the US in Panama, it was actually part of a wider and more ambitious agenda:
reestablishing US presence in South America and containing China´s growing influence over
the region.
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, US foreign policy shifted and gave little to no priority to the
Americas with the exception of countries like Mexico and Canada, and neighboring sub regions such as Central America and the Caribbean.
Since then, South America saw the fast rise of left-leaning governments, anti-American
rhetoric and integration initiatives that emphasized the exclusion of the US from regional
policymaking. Almost a decade and a half later, we see how US withdrawal from the region
allowed for the growing presence of other international actors such as Russia, China, and even Iran.
Russia positioned itself closely with the countries with the most radicalized anti-imperialist discourse, becoming an investor in the energy sector
and a military equipment provider. China on the other hand went further: It focused
on commercial ties with the
region, actively investing in South-American countries, selling manufactured goods of all
sorts, purchasing commodities, selling weapons systems, and even becoming the de facto
banker of governments with which it developed close relationships such as Venezuela,
Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador. Overall, Latin-American countries received $22 billion in Chinese loans in 2014 alone, taking the
total since 2005 to $119 billion.
Cuban President Raul Castro gave an historic joint conference with Barack Obama at the Summit of the Americas in Panama – AFP
PHOTO/MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
In regards to commerce, Argentina
provides a prime example of increasing Chinese influence. In 2014,
has been the
second largest exporter to Latin America behind the US, but ahead of the European Union.
This rising presence and influence of China in what the US has historically considered its
own “back-yard” worried the Obama Administration’s decision makers, leading them to seek a new strategy to
16.5% of Argentine imports came from China, in sharp contrast to the 3.4% it bought in 1994. Since 2010, China
reengage with countries in South America as part of a broader global strategy that applied “smart power.”
The ideological and symbolic leader of anti-American resistance in the region, Cuba,
became the key to accessing a now
diplomatically distant region as the embargo on the island had not only taken its toll on
bilateral relations, but had become a key issue of dispute between the US and Latin
American countries. For years the region has taken a strong stance and demanded Cuba´s reincorporation in the Inter-American
system, therefore any initiatives to create ties with Castro´s regime would also be favorable to creating dialogue conditions with the rest of the
region, including antagonistic countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela.
In Venezuela, Maduro´s
government (based on the legacy of the late Hugo Chávez), has continued the policies of
the previous administration by strengthening ties with Russia, China, and Iran, in opposition to US influence.
An example of this has been Venezuela´s growing oil exports to the Asian giant, going from
50,000 barrels per day in 2006 to roughly 600,000 barrels per day sent to China in 2014. These growing exports
have been part of a wider strategy aimed at reducing dependency on exports to the United States, as well as being used to back loans provided by
China that now exceed $56 billion. China has also expanded its investments in Venezuela by acquiring and developing a plethora of companies,
along with the signing of large military contracts to provide Venezuelan armed forces with aircraft, radars, armored vehicles, and helicopters.
China´s influence has also extended to more moderate governments in the region as in the
cases of Ecuador and Argentina. In the case of the latter, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner´s administration signed a treaty that
included the establishing of a “space exploration site” in the Argentine Patagonia with very few public details on the purpose and functioning of
these installations, which will be under complete control of Chinese government. Many security experts agree on the fact that not only is the
agreement absolutely opaque on the intention of the site, but also that the presence of dual-purpose technologies allow the station to operate as
an intelligence gathering platform. Argentina has also become a recipient of Chinese loans, and an important provider of commodities.
Returning to the Panama Summit, it becomes clear it has been successful for Obama´s foreign policy intentions because it achieved not only the
“must-have” picture with Castro and the joint press conference, but also because it unveiled a new beginning in US relations with Latin America
and the Caribbean. Also because at this juncture of the process it managed to avoid confrontation with Venezuela´s Maduro, just as his Bolivarian
government begins to lose regional support.
In a series of events previous to the summit, Venezuelan Chavismo took a hard hit when
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff gave a prime time interview to CNN where she
expressed the “absolute interest” of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) in seeing the liberation of political
prisoners in Venezuela. Another blow came from Uruguay, when in the lead up to the Summit, its Foreign Affairs Minister made strong
declarations condemning Venezuela for holding political prisoners and allowing for the use of firearms against protestors, as well as
differentiating themselves by stating that such actions would be unimaginable in their own country. Ahead of the Summit, leaders presented the
Declaration of Panama, which demanded “negotiated solutions” to the “severe democratic crisis” in Venezuela. Since, it’s been signed by 31
former presidents, amounting to even greater pressure on the Venezuelan government. In a much less discussed aspect of Obama´s strategy
before his visit to Panama, Thomas Shannon went to Venezuela to hold discussions with the Venezuelan government as well as to host a meeting
in the US Embassy in Caracas with opposition leaders.
Overall, “Bolivarian” hard liners in the region where only seen in the background of the main snapshots of the Summit. Presidents Obama and
Castro´s conciliatory speeches opened the door to a new phase in hemispheric relations, while Maduro, Morales, Kirchner and Correa transmitted
nothing but dated speeches and empty rhetoric. However, and most importantly, the US has taken steps to deal with the biggest underlying
protagonist of the Summit, China, which although not formally present has taken a huge role in the hemispheric agenda.
The region now finds itself in an important position when it comes to the US’ new
continental strategy, aimed at strengthening alliances that will support the Trans-Atlantic Partnership
(TPP) as a counterweight to the Free Trade Area of Asia Pacific (FTAAP) that was launched by China at
the APEC Summit in Beijing last November. While the TPP includes only 12 APEC member countries, FTAAP
aspires to include 22 APEC countries, after a two-year study that will prepare the technical
ground for the agreement. Beijing´s response is uncertain, but Latin-America´s growing
strategic value is becoming inarguable, and therefore we are witnessing the initial stages of
an escalating competition between the US, China
and other superpowers
to gain ground in this part
of the world.
That results in US-China power struggle
Cerna 11
Michael Cerna, a graduate student in International Policy Management at Kennesaw State University, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin
America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, China Research Center,
http://www.chinacenter.net/author/michael-cerna/NV
Future Implications
With both the U.S. and China making gains in the region in different sectors, there is seemingly room for each side to grow; which implies that, in
fact, trade with Latin America is not a zero-sum game. China presents an alternative to the United States, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
The U.S. is much more diversified than China at the moment and therefore does not need to enter into direct competition. However, as
China responds to calls from Brazil and diversifies its investments, there is increasing worry
that China is going to outmatch U.S. trade in the region. These fears may be economically
based, but there are potentially harmful political consequences – primarily, providing Latin
America with a quasi-world power as an alternative to the U.S. Since the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America has
been considered a secure sphere of influence for the U.S. The fact that China presents a less democratic alternative to U.S. influence presents a
major problem.
The third BRICS summit in April provided more insight into the potential consequences of
China’s growing place in Latin America via its relations with Brazil. One proposal to emerge from the
summit of the five nations (Brazil, India, China, Russia and South Africa) was a broad-based international reserve currency system providing
stability and certainty. The
idea was to set up a new exchange rate mechanism that would bypass the
U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world. In addition, banks of the five BRICS nations
agreed to establish mutual credit lines in their local currencies, not in U.S. currency. While the
chances of such a proposal gaining support are debatable, it sets a clear example of a possible shift in power away from the U.S. and toward a
more global organization, one that is arguably anchored by China. If
China becomes a preferred partner in Latin
America, it will show that U.S. dominance around the globe also is at risk.
Conclusion
So what does China’s growing place in the region mean for the future? Depending on whom this question is posed to, there are two probable
answers. The first is that China’s
intensifying relations with Latin America offer a clear sign of the end
of U.S. dominance in the region, and in a greater sense, the entire world. There is enough
evidence to show that the tides have changed in favor of China. The other answer is that it means nothing.
The U.S. is obviously still the more dominant power in the region, and Chinese presence will eventually subside, again leaving the United States
as the region’s premier partner. The real answer probably falls somewhere in the middle.
Is China the preferred partner for Latin America? At this point, the definitive answer is no.
However, the United States should not take its place in the region for granted. There is clear evidence of an
increasingly symbiotic relationship with China throughout Latin America. While the U.S. is
the most dominant trade partner to the region as a whole, it is losing ground in key
countries, namely Brazil, which is blossoming on the world stage and is emerging as the clear leader in the region. Increasing trade and
investment can be beneficial for all, but the power that China can derive from its growing economic
influence could bring increased political and ideological influence that the U.S. might find
unnerving. China already has replaced the U.S. as the largest trading partner for Brazil and
Chile, and is on pace to do the same in Peru and Venezuela. At the very least, this should cause the U.S. to pay
more attention to its southern neighbors and take steps to make sure that China only benefits economically and not politically at the expense of
the U.S. The world will be watching.
As it stands, the Chinese are not broadening their relations with the region in a way that directly competes with the United States. China is strictly
concerned with commodities, including oil. U.S. President Barack Obama recently signed an agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras that will allow the
oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. This symbolic move could cause tensions to increase as the world’s two largest oil consumers battle
over rights to Brazilian oil. In that regard, the competition may go beyond a race to Latin commodities and move into the realm of fighting for
political influence. It
is odd to think that the United States would need to compete for hemispheric
dominance with a country on the other side of the globe, but China’s actions and increasing
integration into the region tell us that such a scenario may one day arise. Given the
proximity and importance of Latin America to the United States, this region could be the
symbolic battle that best measures the continued hegemony of the U.S. versus China.
With both the U.S. and China jockeying for influence in a world where political power
relations are changing, Latin America has the most to gain. The primary concern for the region is that it does
not become a battle ground for a neo-Cold War between China and the U.S. Brazil already has clearly stated its concerns regarding Chinese
influence. Yet, despite this tension, Brazil
is now too reliant on China to turn away from the path on
which Lula set the country. Agricultural exports to China are crucial to Brazil’s economy.
Lula’s Brazil supported China politically and made clear moves away from the United States.
Now Rouseff’s administration has welcomed Barack Obama with open arms. With all three major actors going through stages that could
influence the global economic and political landscape – China implementing its 12th five-year plan, Brazil cementing itself as a prominent world
player and the
U.S. still recovering from a terrible financial crisis – this dynamic relationship is
one that deserves close attention from all those concerned with the future of China-U.S.
relations. Where Brazil and the rest of Latin America were once looking for an alternative to U.S. influence and found China, the region may
now be looking to the U.S. to strike a balance with growing Chinese influence. With the global ambitions of Latin America, namely Brazil, it is
essential to maintain close ties with both the United States and China. The world will be watching.
US-Sino War causes extinction
Wittner 11
Lawrence Wittner, received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University, a former president on the Council on Peace Research in History and currently a
professor at Emeritus University, “Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?” November 30, 2011, the Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html/NV
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for
centuries international conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest
weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us
with yet another example of this phenomenon.
The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by
China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged
China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the
Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power."
But need this lead to nuclear war?
Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both
the United States and China possess large
numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear
weapons during the Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu.
In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just exactly
as you would use a bullet or anything else."
Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior
of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet
government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals,
should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists.
Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and,
admittedly, there haven't been very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999,
between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such
wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan's foreign
secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did
move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan.
At the least, though, don't
nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO
leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to respond
to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear
attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed
that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars"
and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive -- and probably unworkable -- military
defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might?
Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear
arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese
government has a total inventory of roughly 300. Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United
States would "win" any nuclear war with China.
But what would that "victory" entail? An
attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately
slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many
more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear
war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive
wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a
"nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and
generating chaos and destruction.
Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The
Chinese government is currently
expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its
number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has
plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear weapons and nuclear
production facilities over the next decade.
To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the
nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve
U.S.-China relations. If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage
these policies.
Cuba Key to Relations with Latin America
Cuba key to overall Latin American countries
Welsh 14
Teresa Welsh, a foreign affairs reporter at U.S. News & World Report, “Renewed U.S.-Cuba Ties Will Benefit Larger Relations With Latin
America,” December 18, 2014, US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/18/renewed-us-cuba-ties-will-benefit-relations-withlatin-america
U.S. policy toward Cuba has long been a roadblock to productive relationships with other
Latin American countries, but Wednesday’s announcement that the two nations are
renewing diplomatic ties will benefit the region as a whole. New U.S. measures are expected to increase travel
and economic cooperation with Cuba, although a formal trade embargo cannot be lifted without congressional approval.
[READ: Obama Botched Timing for U.S.-Cuba Relations, Ex-State Department Official Says]
The U.S. was the only remaining country in the region that isolated Cuba, with other nations
regularly raising the issue of the economic embargo in diplomatic meetings with U.S.
officials. The world as a whole also has eschewed the decades-old embargo, with the U.N. voting 23 years in a row to condemn it. Only two
countries of 188 – the U.S. and Israel – voted against a resolution against the restrictions in October.
“Countries across the region really see this policy in Cuba as being completely
counterproductive to our overall engagement with the hemisphere,” says Jason Marczak, deputy director of
the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center at the Atlantic Council. He says the policy has isolated the U.S. from
important areas of engagement in Latin America and prevented it from progress on more pressing
issues.
“We believe that this is going to be a very important issue in terms of increasing our engagement in Latin America, and it positions the United
States to advance our interests and our values more effectively without us being the issue, without
our Cuba policy
consistently being the issue,” a senior administration official told reporters Wednesday. “[N]ow we can focus on
discussing issues we care about, and that includes human rights.”
Critics of the new policy say the U.S. is rewarding a regime with a track record of human rights abuses and suppressing free speech, but the
administration contends it will continue to raise those issues with the Cubans.
“[W]here we disagree, we will raise those differences directly – as we will continue to do on issues related to democracy and human rights in
Cuba,” President Barack Obama said Wednesday. “But I believe that we can do more to support the Cuban people and promote our values
through engagement.”
Marczak says a powerful Cuban lobby in the U.S. was able to prevent the country from previously opening ties with Cuba, but that the younger
generation of Cuban-Americans is not as opposed as their parents were to renewing ties.
Marc Hanson, a senior associate with the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights and democracy nonprofit, says Obama will be
received with good will at next spring’s Summit of the Americas in Panama as a result of his actions on Cuba. Cuba also will be attending the
meeting of regional leaders for the first time, and now discussions won’t have to center around U.S. isolation of the island.
“The most challenging policies for the U.S. to defend have been our drug policy and most importantly, U.S.-Cuba policy. Everything’s
transformed in those respects right now,” Hanson says. “[I]t will no longer be a discussion on whether U.S. policy on drugs and Cuba are good or
bad. We’re going to get to discuss real regional priorities.”
Obama will participate in the summit, his third in office, as long as civil society groups – such as nongovernmental organizations that advocate
for human rights – are also allowed to participate, said the White House.
Latin American leaders were meeting in Argentina when the restoration of ties was
announced, and many appeared taken off guard by the new U.S. policy. But even
Venezuelan President Nicolaus Maduro, a vocal critic of the U.S., said he supported the
move.
"It's a courageous and historically necessary step. It's possibly the most important step of [Obama's] presidency,"
Maduro said.
[READ: Renewed Diplomacy Between U.S., Cuba Follows Enigmatic Relationship]
Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday also spoke to the presidents of Colombia and
Mexico, two of the strongest U.S. allies in the region. Both leaders were supportive of the
new U.S. policy, according to the White House.
Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino additionally expressed support for the U.S.
announcement, telling Reuters that “President Obama’s decision delights us.”
Venezuela and Cuba historically have been close, with former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez viewing former Cuban President Fidel Castro
as somewhat of a mentor. Both leaders opposed U.S. dominance in the region and united in condemnation of what they considered U.S.
imperialism.
Cuba also relies heavily on Venezuela for economic and energy support, though those ties
may be endangered by Venezuela’s struggling economy. Low oil prices and extremely high
inflation have slowed growth and put the country's economy at risk of collapse.
Maduro’s support of the U.S.-Cuba move, however, doesn’t mean ties between the U.S. and Venezuela will automatically improve as well, says
Harold Trinukanas, director of the Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution. He says the triangulated nature of the relationship makes
it impossible to predict the impact of the new U.S. policy on the three countries.
Maduro also opposes a recent sanctions bill passed by Congress that will punish Venezuelan individuals accused of censoring protests against the
government. Obama plans to sign the bill.
Latin America loves normalization – here’s a list of their leaders reactions
Benedetti 14
Ana Maria Benedetti, social media director, “Latin American Leaders Cheer Historic Opening Of U.S.-Cuba Relations,” December 17, 2014,
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/leaders-in-latin-america-_n_6343524.html/NV
Leaders across Latin America from both the right and the left cheered on the historic steps
taken by the governments of the United States and Cuba to thaw their long-frozen relations.
The jailing of U.S. Agency for International Development contractor Alan Gross since 2009 had long stood as the largest obstacle for the Obama
administration toward further relations. The
prisoner swap that led to Gross's release on Wednesday paved
the way for sweeping changes to U.S. policy toward Cuba, including the establishment of embassies in Havana
and Washington for the first time since 1961, reviewing whether Cuba should remain on the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" List and allowing
American travelers to bring some items purchased in Cuba home with them (yes, including $100 worth of cigars).
For most heads of state in Latin America, where the embargo is unpopular and Cuba generally isn't viewed as a pariah, the move was long
overdue.
Here's what Latin American leaders had to say:
Colombia: Conservative President Juan Manuel Santos applauded both the U.S. and Cuban governments'
"courage" through Twitter.
"We celebrate the courage and audacity of President Barack Obama and the Cuban government to create a peaceful future in the American
continent."
Peru: Left-leaning President Ollanta Humala also celebrated the event.
"It's a brave, historic decision that opens a new stage in the process of America's integration."
Venezuela: Leftist President Nicolás Maduro focused his comments on the release of three Cuban prisoners convicted
spying in the United States, a cause championed by the Cuban government for years.
Maduro said that "we were living a historic day" due to the liberation of the prisoners while at the 47th Mercosur Summit in
Argentina. He also said that the event was made possible due to "actions by Fidel Castro" while recognizing Obama's role in the process,
according to local Venezuelan media.
Mexico: President Enrique Peña Nieto's government released another positive statement,
saying the move was a step forward for both countries.
Argentina: President Cristina Fernández praised the Cuban people for their "courage."
Fernández, who just handed over the temporary presidency of Mercosur to Dilma Rousseff, specifically congratulated the Cuban government and
its people on behalf of Mercosur (which stands for Southern Common Market, in Spanish). The sub-regional bloc counts Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela among its members. She said the process of normalizing relations with the U.S. had been undertaken with
"absolute dignity and on an equal standing," according to EFE.
Brazil: President Dilma Rousseff congratulated both countries on the opening of relations.
Rousseff heaped praise on both Obama and Castro for the reconciliation. She also gave a shoutout to Pope Francis, saying the agreement "sets an
example that it is possible to reestablish broken relations."
The establishment of an embassy is critical to normalize relations with Cuba
Jacobson 6/15
Roberta Jacobson, current Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. State Department, “NORMALIZING U.S.
RELATIONS WITH CUBA: FIVE MINUTES WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBERTA JACOBSON,” June 15, 2015, Edmund A. Walsh
School of Foreign Service, http://journal.georgetown.edu/normalizing-u-s-relations-with-cuba-five-minutes-with-assistant-secretary-roberta-jacobson/NV
GJIA: What is the current timeline for re-establishing relations with Cuba?
RJ: The
re-establishment of diplomatic relations and re-opening of embassies will allow us to better
represent U.S. interests and increase our engagement with the Cuban people. Conversations with the Cuban
government are on going, and they will continue until we work out a way forward that both serves U.S. interests and ensures that our embassy can operate in a
normal manner. It is important to remember that what we are discussing with Cuba right now —the
re-establishment of diplomatic
relations and the reopening of embassies — is the first step in a process of normalization that will ultimately
take years.
GJIA: What are the most important political considerations for the U.S. government, as it moves forward in this process?
RJ: Our objective has been and continues to be to empower the Cuban people to freely determine their own future. Our previous approach, though rooted in
the best of intentions, has had little effect after half a century. This
new approach is designed to bring about a dialogue
between the U.S. and the Cuban people, thus promoting changes that support universal human rights
and fundamental freedoms in Cuba, as well as our other national interests.
GJIA: What does the Cuban government hope to achieve by normalizing its relationship with the U.S.?
RJ: We are currently discussing matters of mutual concern, including migration, law enforcement, civil aviation, access to information, environmental
protection, human rights, health issues, and trafficking in persons.
When I led the U.S. delegation to Havana in January, I was moved by the many Cubans — from people on the plane to people in the street — who
spontaneously came up to us to give us their blessings and wish us good luck in the negotiations. I also just saw a recent poll that shows that the majority of the
Cuban people support re-establishing diplomatic relations with the U.S. So there is a collective will to normalize our relationship as well.
GJIA: What are the greatest challenges in re-establishing ties with the country?
RJ: As I mentioned before, both the U.S. and Cuban governments are working together on areas of mutual interest. That being said, we have different views of
how society should be organized and issues on which we deeply disagree. President Obama was direct with President Castro that we are not going to stop
raising the issues of democracy and human rights, including the freedom of assembly and the freedom of expression. We do not think we are perfect or that
the
previous policy of isolation did not advance the goals and interests of United States citizens, nor did
it advance those of the Cuban people. Re-establishing diplomatic relations and re-opening embassies will advance
our interests and also more effectively engage the Cuban people on our core values.
every country has to mimic us, but there are a set of universal commitments for which we stand up everywhere. As the President also pointed out,
GJIA: How do you envision the process of Cuba’s economic re-integration playing out, if it does so at all?
RJ: The Cuban government is responsible for the direction of Cuba’s economy. Though we have seen some small changes in it over the last few years, we are
taking steps to aid this process. President Obama’s new approach helps Cuba’s nascent private sector by permitting Americans to send unlimited remittances to
individual Cubans in order to better support private businesses and independent non-governmental organizations, and to engage in certain microfinance
activities, entrepreneurial training, and development projects in Cuba under general licenses. This new approach allows for increased telecommunication
connections between the United States and Cuba. Also, U.S. companies are permitted to export items such as building materials, equipment, tools, and supplies
for use by the Cuban private sector. The President called on Congress to begin the work of lifting the embargo this year.
GJIA: What role will the State Department play in attempting to mitigate these challenges moving forward?
As an embassy, our mission in Havana will
be to even more effectively represent U.S. interests, as our engagement with the Cuban people
increases. The U.S. Interests Section in Havana already provides consular services to both Americans and Cubans, speaks out on universal human rights,
RJ: We want to deepen our interaction with a much broader segment of Cuban society.
works to ensure safe, orderly, and legal migration, supports cultural, educational, and sports exchanges, and encourages greater access to information about the
United States and in general for all Cubans. But with an embassy, we hope to further expand our interaction with Cuban officials and the Cuban people.
GJIA: What impact has the Cuban Human Rights Act (2015) had on U.S. federal laws regarding sanctions toward the country and human rights violations in
Cuba? Does Cuba have a plan in place to quell these violations?
RJ: We understand that the Cuban Human Rights Act has been introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Relations. Our
commitment to universal human rights in Cuba is unwavering. We condemn all instances of Cuban government-sponsored harassment, the use of violence,
and the arbitrary detention of Cuban citizens that peacefully exercise their rights of expression or assembly. We will continue to speak out on behalf of
universal values in Cuba and elsewhere in the world.
Increased relations with Cuba are key to Latin American relations --- helps
restore U.S. primacy
Romero and Neuman 14
Simon Romero, the Brazil bureau chief for the New York Times and previously a national financial correspondent in Houston, Texas, William Neuman, writer
for the New York Times, “Cuba Thaw Lets Rest of Latin America Warm to Washington,” December 18, 2014, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/world/americas/a-brave-move-by-obama-removes-a-wedge-in-relations-with-latin-america.html?_r=0/NV
BUENOS AIRES — President Obama
has been lambasted for spying in Brazil, accused of being a warmonger
by Bolivia, dismissed as a “lost opportunity” by Argentina, and taunted in Nicaragua by calls for Latin America
to draw up its own list of state sponsors of terrorism — with the United States in the No. 1 spot.
But now
Latin American leaders have a new kind of vocabulary to describe him: They are calling him
“brave,” “extraordinary” and “intelligent.”
After years of watching his influence in Latin America slip away, Mr. Obama suddenly turned the
tables this week by declaring a sweeping détente with Cuba, opening the way for a major
repositioning of the United States in the region.
Washington’s isolation of Cuba has long been a defining fixture of Latin American politics, something that
has united governments across the region, regardless of their ideologies. Even some of Washington’s close allies in the Americas have rallied to Cuba’s side.
Now, Mr. Obama’s restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba is snatching a major cudgel from his critics
and potentially restoring some of Washington’s influence in a region where rivals like China
have long chipped away at America’s primacy.
“We never thought we would see this moment,” said Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist guerrilla who chided the Obama administration last
year over the National Security Agency’s surveillance of her and her top aides. She called the deal with Cuba “a moment which marks a change in civilization.”
The change in tone was perhaps starkest from President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Cuba’s main
financial patron. He has called Mr. Obama the “big boss of the devils,” a puppet and a sad “hostage” of American
imperialism. More recently, he lashed out at Mr. Obama over a bill calling for sanctions against Venezuelan officials deemed responsible for human rights
abuses.
But on
Wednesday, when Mr. Obama announced the Cuba deal, Mr. Maduro was almost effusive.
“We have to recognize the gesture of President Barack Obama, a brave gesture and historically necessary,
perhaps the most important step of his presidency,” Mr. Maduro said.
Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president and former Sandinista rebel, was chastising Mr. Obama just days ago, saying the United States deserved the top spot
in a new list of state sponsors of terrorism. Then, on Wednesday, he saluted the “brave decisions” of the American president.
“Our previous Cuba policy was clearly an irritant and a drag on our policy in the region,” said Roberta S.
Jacobson, the American assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, adding that it had
caused friction even with countries friendly to Washington. She said that countries “with whom we have significant
differences are going to be, let’s say, thrown off their stride by a move like this.”
“It removes an excuse for blaming the United States for things,” she added.
The thaw comes just a few months before the Summit of the Americas, a gathering of hemispheric
leaders in Panama under the Organization of American States, the Washington-based group from which Cuba was
suspended in 1962.
The Panamanian hosts confirmed earlier this month that Cuba would attend the summit for the first time, making for a potentially awkward meeting for
American officials.
“They asked themselves, do you really want to show up and have every reasonable president of the region say, ‘Is this how you really want to engage with Latin
America?' ” said Eric Hershberg, the director of the American University Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.
One senior Obama administration official said that pressure from the region on Washington’s Cuba
policy had crept into and impeded other discussions.
“In the last Summit of the Americas, instead of talking about things we wanted to focus on —
exports, counternarcotics — we spent a lot of time talking about U.S.-Cuba policy,” said the official, who was
not authorized to speak publicly. “A key factor with any bilateral meeting is, ‘When are you going to change your Cuba policy?' ”
As for Cuba, experts said a significant factor pushing it to favor better relations with the United
States was the economic trouble in Venezuela, whose leftist government has propped up Cuba for years with shipments of oil, much
as the Soviet Union once did.
Venezuela ships about 100,000 barrels of oil a day to Cuba, in exchange for Cuban doctors, nurses, athletic trainers and military advisers. The relationship is
worth billions of dollars a year to Cuba.
Mr. Maduro has pledged to continue supporting Cuba, but Venezuela is in the throes of a deep economic crisis that is being made worse by a drastic drop in
the price of oil, Venezuela’s main export.
“That’s been an ongoing problem for the Cuban government for some time now, trying to figure out how they can diversify their economic relationship so
they weren’t so dependent on Venezuela,” said Ted Piccone, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research organization. “When they looked at their
options, they realized that better relations with the United States were critical to their economic strategy.”
Mr. Obama’s
shift on Cuba could have tangible effects. In Brazil, it may deprive critics of an easy
target and ease the way for Ms. Rousseff, a leftist with skeptics of her leadership in her own Workers
Party, to mend ties with the United States.
In Colombia, the top ally of the United States in South America, the new policy could spur peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or
FARC, to end the region’s longest-running guerrilla war.
Cuba, which long supported FARC, has played a central role in the talks by helping to bring the two sides to the table for negotiations, which are taking place
in Havana. Many analysts thought that Cuba’s role was part of a broader strategy to soften its profile and convince Washington that it could play a constructive
role in the hemisphere, where it had once sought to stir violent revolution.
Given the long history of skepticism over Washington’s policies in Latin America, some in the streets of the region’s cities greeted the shift warily.
“I’m always suspicious of the United States,” said Rubén Grimaldi, 65, a retired owner of a toy store in Buenos Aires. “They must have a knife somewhere
under their poncho.”
But while sharp differences persist on many issues, other major Washington policy shifts have recently been applauded in the region, including Mr. Obama’s
immigration plan and the resettlement in Uruguay of six detainees from Guantánamo Bay.
“These measures will not eliminate suspicions and resentments, but they will give Washington enhanced credibility on a range of other issues,” said Michael
Shifter, the president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy group, speaking from Havana.
The first test of the impact of the shift over Cuba could come swiftly in Venezuela, where Mr. Maduro must determine how to respond to the new American
sanctions, which Mr. Obama signed into law Thursday.
Given that he had called a rally against the United States and thundered against the “insolent Yankee imperialists” on Monday, Mr. Maduro’s response to the
new law was muted.
“President Obama has taken a false step against our country today,” he said in a series of posts on his Twitter account. “On the one hand, he recognizes the
failure of the policy of aggression and embargo” against Cuba, “and on the other hand, he starts the escalation of a new stage of aggression” toward Venezuela.
Before the thaw with Cuba, Mr. Maduro had hinted that he was considering kicking out American
diplomats, something he has done before. But now that Cuba has opened its doors to American
diplomats, Mr. Maduro must consider how it would look for him to be once again showing the door
to American envoys.
“There will be radical and fundamental change,” said Andrés Pastrana, a former president of Colombia. “I think that to a large extent the anti-imperialist
discourse that we have had in the region has ended. The
Cold War is over.”
Latin American Relations Key to Econ / Heg / Climate
Latin American relations solve human rights, energy, economy, hegemony and
climate
Trinkunas 14
Harold Trinkunas, is a senior fellow and director of the Latin American Initiative in the Foreign Policy Program at The Brookings Institute, “New U.S.-Cuba
Policy Will Revitalize Hemispheric Relations,” December 18, 2014, Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/12/18-cubapolicy-will-revitalize-hemispheric-relations-trinkunas/NV
The steps announced by the White House yesterday to re-establish diplomatic relations with
Cuba and move towards normal travel and trade between the two countries are remarkable. There have been many false
starts during the past 50 years of back channel negotiations seeking to improve U.S.-Cuba
relations. In recent years, Cuba had already been playing a more positive role in regional and global relations, for example by hosting the Colombian
peace negotiations, a process that the United States supports, and by sending medical personnel to combat the spread of Ebola in West Africa. Although
pressure in the United States for a change in Cuba policy had been building, the president’s announcement goes beyond what had been discussed in the past
and beyond what many thought possible. Easing
the restrictions on trade, travel, investment and financial
relations between United States and Cuban citizens also builds on the process of economic
restructuring that has been underway in Cuba in recent years. This has already produced remarkable transformations in Cuban
society, such as an emerging middle class and a growing non-state sector that is offering new opportunities for hundreds of thousands on the island.
It also goes without saying that this is an important story for U.S. domestic politics. U.S.
policy towards Cuba has always been
controversial, and there is considerable resistance to change even today, particularly in the
U.S. Congress. On the other hand, U.S. public opinion towards Cuba has been shifting,
particularly across generational and demographic lines. In early 2014, 56 percent of all Americans and 63 percent of Floridians were found to be favorable to
improved relations.
President Obama’s
use of executive authority to push for restored diplomatic relations with Cuba
and liberalization of economic ties creates a historic opportunity to revitalize hemispheric
relations, but there are also some potential pitfalls ahead.
New Space for Productive Regional Engagement
Since the 1990s, Latin America’s support for U.S. policy towards Cuba in the hemisphere has
dwindled. Even the once-shared consensus on the defense of democracy and human rights,
embodied in institutions such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the InterAmerican Democratic Charter, has weakened in recent years. This meant that most Latin American states no longer accepted a
lack of democracy as a valid rationale for excluding Cuba from hemispheric institutions, such as the Organization of American States or the Summit of the
Americas. Leaders
of the region made this clear to President Obama at the Cartagena Summit of the Americas in
was a real possibility that U.S.-Cuba relations might be the focus of
another acrimonious Summit in Panama in 2015.
2012, and until yesterday, there
As Richard Feinberg argued yesterday, there is a major opportunity to reframe U.S. participation in the upcoming Summit of the Americas. By
reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, the United States has removed a contentious
issue that has been a thorn in U.S.-Latin America relations and has diverted attention from
more productive areas of collaboration in the hemisphere. This policy change creates a space for the
U.S. to engage more productively with Latin America on a broad agenda, including on key Summit topics of
democracy and human rights, as well as on global competitiveness, energy and environment,
and social inclusion. All of this serves to enhance U.S. soft power
decade.
Divergent Interests vis-à-vis Venezuela
in the region, which has eroded in the past
However some states in the region, particularly Venezuela, are likely to be quietly concerned by the implications of normalized U.S.-Cuba relations. Venezuela
has been a major supplier of oil to the United States historically, although this role has declined in recent years. U.S.-Venezuela relations have been quite poor
for over a decade, and Venezuela has led a coalition of countries, known as ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), that have adopted
generally anti-U.S. foreign policies. Starting in the early 2000s, Venezuela has supplied oil to Cuba on very generous terms in return for Cuban technical,
medical and political support. So while President Maduro eventually welcomed the historic news on U.S.-Cuban relations, initial reactions in Caracas suggest
that Venezuela was never fully informed of the state of negotiations with the United States. If true, this is a telling indicator of the state of Cuba-Venezuela
relations.
Venezuela’s economy is rapidly deteriorating, and the Cuba-U.S. policy shift highlights its increasing isolation in the region. Venezuela depends on oil for close
to 95 percent of its foreign exchange and it imports over 70 percent of basic consumer goods. The decline of oil from an average of $111 per barrel in 2012 to
less than $60 today represents a dramatic decline in the government’s ability to satisfy basic consumer needs, let alone fund Venezuela’s international
petrodiplomacy in the region. Even President Maduro has admitted that his regime needs oil at $100 per barrel, and other estimates put Venezuela’s breakeven
point even higher. The rapid deterioration of Venezuela’s economy is also a blow for whatever soft power its Bolivarian regime had accumulated
internationally.
The United States and Cuba have both invested considerable prestige and diplomatic effort
in securing the present agreement, and it opens up a new panorama for inter-American
relations. In addition to the themes of democracy and human rights that will be discussed at the Summit of the Americas, there are important areas for
cooperation between the two countries on security and energy in the Caribbean. But both the United States and Cuba are part of a triangular relationship with
Venezuela, a regime whose economic fortunes are rapidly deteriorating and whose political future looks increasingly troubled. Cuba and the United States will
inevitably have differences of opinion over how to handle Venezuela, given their very different historical experiences and government-to-government relations
with this country. Managing
these tensions will be an important part of successfully completing the
agenda that President Obama has set out.
AT: Human Rights Turn
Lifting the embargo is key to spread human rights
Marple, 7/7/15 --- Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Olivia, ForeignAffairs.co.nz, “Roadblocks Remain in US-Cuba
Rapprochement,” Factiva/NV)
Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba will finally be restored on July 20,
when Washington reopens its embassy in Havana after more than 50 years of political
turmoil between the two countries. Cuba will also open its embassy in Washington that day, and John Kerry will visit Havana, making him the first U.S.
secretary of state to go to Cuba in 70 years.[1]
This is a step in the right direction in regard to US-Cuban policy since the U.S. embargo,
which was enacted in the early 1960s, has not been successful in bringing about regime
change or some version of the Washington Consensus in Cuba.[2] “It hasn’t worked for 50
years,” Obama said in his announcement from the Rose Garden last week. “It shuts America out of Cuba’s future, and it only makes
life worse for the Cuban people.”[3]
Instead of naming an ambassador right away, the Obama Administration announced it would make Jeffery DeLaurentis its charge d’affaires. DeLaurentis has
led the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba beginning last year. Senators and presidential candidates Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have declared they
will oppose any ambassador that Obama nominates.[4]
These Republicans and other critics of the normalization process between the two countries argue that Obama is legitimizing the government of Raúl Castro
without attempting to seek guarantees of improvement in human rights on the island. Rubio has been especially indignant about the easing in relations,
insisting that it is “important that pro-democracy activities not be sacrificed in the name of ‘diplomacy’ just so that we can change the name of a building from
‘Interest Section’ to ‘Embassy.’”[5]
While this condemnation on Rubio’s part certainly makes him appear tough on governments that do not share Washington’s values, it
does not
offer any real solution to the problems dissenting Cubans face and ignores the valuable
cultural exchange that can take place through increased levels of tourism and bilateral
economic transaction.
The number of Americans who visited Cuba between January 1 and May 9 this year
increased 36 percent compared to the same period in 2014.[6] Although the result of this influx of American tourists remains to be seen, it
appears that if critics like Rubio want Cuba to inherit American ideals, contact between the countries would be a good
start.
As part of the agreement between the United States and Cuba, Cuba has agreed to relax restrictions on Internet access,
and, in fact, the American media streaming site Netflix announced Cubans can now stream its content.[7] Although independent Cuban websites are still
blocked, this increase in Internet
freedoms will most likely snowball into greater access.[8]
It should be noted that this
exchange of ideas will not only be one way, and it should not be assumed
that Cuban citizens will be the only ones learning from American tourists and companies.
For example, Cuba provides healthcare for “all segments of the population” and still
manages to boast a medical system with “results similar to those of the most developed
nations.”[9] Its education system enjoys success as well; its literacy rate is 99.8 percent, far above
many of its Caribbean neighbors.[10]
In addition to the Republicans’ opposition to appointing an ambassador, another roadblock to complete normalization is the fact that the embargo can only be
completely lifted by Congress, which is currently Republican-controlled.[11] Obama cannot lift these sanctions against Cuba himself because in 1996 former
President Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton law, which declared the embargo could only be lifted by a majority of votes in Congress.[12]
This illustrates that, despite the progress made on Obama’s part, barriers remain. Rubio and other critics of this rapprochement are only gumming up a process
that could actually result in some of the increased human rights and democratic changes they have been calling for.
Those who critique this decision not only get in the way of a potentially positive step in the lives of Cubans but also are hypocritical in their intense devotion to
fighting for human rights. In
a 2013 article, Human Rights Watch detailed a handful of countries with
whom the United States is allied that have, arguably, worse human rights records than Cuba
and should not receive unconditional U.S. support, such as Afghanistan, Uzbekistan,
Cambodia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Mexico.
Critics of Obama’s actions regarding US-Cuba rapprochement should not use human rights
as the only reason to deny this easing of relations when they do not mind being associated
with oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a country that “suppresses most dissent” and “insists that the neighboring Bahraini
monarchy crush its pro-democracy movement.”[13]
Another important aspect of the discussion is how Cubans view this decision. Traditionally, Cuban-Americans have been against the easing of relations
between Washington and Havana, but a Florida International University poll indicated that 7
in 10 Cuban-Americans are now in
favor of reestablished diplomatic relations.[14]
In light of the news that the United States will be reopening its embassy, the atmosphere in Cuba is hopeful overall, according to independent Cuban news
publication 14ymedio. While the online newspaper did note that some Cubans critiqued the move, many others emphasized their positive expectations for the
future. Specifically, Cubans highlighted that rapprochement could mend familial ruptures caused by the 54-year-old political divide between the countries.[15]
“I have two brothers that I only know through photographs,” said Cuban citizen Elizabeth
Batista Acosta, “because I am the youngest of three and they went to the United States in a raft when I started primary school. They’ve never
wanted to return, and [the government] won’t give me a visa to see them.”
Batista hopes that, with the opening of an American embassy, her brothers will be able to visit her and her mother “and bring flowers together to our father in
the cemetery.”
María Suárez, a Cuban-American and resident of Miami, who also has been separated from her family for long periods of time due to the embargo, said, “I
hope the diplomatic relations between the countries help the Cubans both here and over there to be closer. I don’t understand much about politics, but I do
know that we can’t go back.”[16]
The embargo will not produce change
Johnson, 7/8/15 --- U.S. Rep., a Democrat, represents Georgia’s 4th congressional district (Hank, The Atlanta Journal – Constitution, “Cold
War failed; build new bridges with U.S.-Cuba,” Factiva/NV)
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results."
---Albert Einstein
More than a quarter-century since the Cold War ended, and after more than 50 years of
oppressive policy, President Barack Obama is pursuing a new course with Cuba.
With this new direction, America is reopening our embassy in Havana and easing sanctions.
It is now time to admit the Cold War-era strategy has failed.
The United States' 53-year-old policy towards Cuba has been to isolate and embargo this small island nation, which
was designed to cause the collapse of the Communist government of Fidel Castro. Despite
America's policy, which has made life harder for the Cuban people, Cuba's economy has
weathered the U.S. embargo while maintaining positive growth for most of the last four decades.
President Ronald Reagan
added Cuba to the State Sponsor of Terrorism list in 1982 when Cuba was
actively supporting the guerrilla movement in Colombia and the Spanish Basque terrorist group ETA. According to the
State Department, this activity ceased decades ago.
Today, Cuba
poses no threat to the United States militarily, economically or otherwise. So why
should America continue pursuit of a failed strategy? Opponents of diplomacy point to the
lack of human rights the Cuban government affords to its citizens, including the lack of free speech protectionsand the generally slow pace of
democratic changes within Cuba.
These are real and pressing issues of legitimate concern to the United States, but even
President Obama's opponents admit the
isolation of Cuba has not produced the desired result. Just as economic sanctions have failed
to cripple Cuba's economy, they have also failed to encourage improvement of Cuba's
human rights record. We are more likely to see democratic changes emerge in Cuba through negotiations, open dialogueand the free flow of
ideas and commerce.
The rest of the world agrees. Not only has the United Nations General Assembly voted 23
times calling on the U.S. end to its embargo, but 97 percent of nations throughout the world
oppose our policy. It also makes economic sense to normalize relations, which would give U.S. banks access
to Cuba's financial system and decrease barriers to free trade, benefiting both nations.
Perhaps most importantly, by opening relations the U.S. can show good faith to the people
of Cuba and all of Latin America by affirming that sovereign people have the right to choose their own destiny, how they are governed
and how they are educated without fear of foreign intervention.
For decades, United States policy has been illogical and driven by a small but powerful lobby. For Congress to appease this lobby by impeding the
administration's use of diplomacy, and continue to pursue the same tired policy of the past, is the very definition of insanity.
I have supported normalizing our relationship with Cuba since I was elected to Congress in 2007. As a co-sponsor of the Free Trade with Cuba Act, the
Export Freedom to Cuba Act, the Promoting American Agriculture and Medical Exports Cuba Act and the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, I have
consistently pursued policies that will improve the lives of Americans and Cubans.
I agree with a majority of Americans. A recent Gallup Poll indicated that nearly 60 percent favor reestablishing
diplomatic relations with Cuba. Similarly, a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post
said 97 percent of Cubans favored the normalization of relations with the United States.
AT: Embargo Good
Honestly, it doesn’t
Brinkley 12
Joel Brinkley, was a columnist at the New York Times for 23 years, taught journalism at Stanford University and won a Pulitzer prize for his work
in foreign news, “Cuba embargo isn't working but isn't going away,” December 18, 2012, POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cuba-embargo-isnt-working-but-isnt-going-away-85281.html/NV
America’s embargo on Cuba began its 53rd year this fall, and it’s hard to find anyone who
thinks it’s working. Even Cuban-Americans who hate the Castro brothers and fervently insist that the embargo remain in place
generally agree that it has accomplished little, if anything.
Still, said Jaime
Suchlicki, a Cuban émigré who is the director of the Cuba Transition Project at
the University of Miami, “do you give away a policy that has been in place for 50 years, whether
you think it’s right or wrong, good or bad, effective or not — for nothing? Without a quid pro quo from Cuba?”
Suchlicki came to the United States in the first wave of Cuban refugees in 1960 after the communist revolution. His hardline views mirror those of
many in his generation. And for decades, it dominated the Cuba discussion in Florida, a state presidential candidates have long believed they
need to win to be elected.
But today the Cuban-American population is more diverse, as the U.S. presidential election last month showed. Previously, Cuban-Americans
regularly voted in favor of Republicans, who are generally staunch embargo supporters, by 4 to 1. This time, President Barack Obama won half
their vote.
Now an argument can be made that if the half-century of political paralysis on this issue can
be overcome, both Cuba and the United States would benefit. American tourists would most
likely pour into Cuba, buying cigars, staying in beachfront hotels — spending money in the
Cuban economy. And American businesses would find an eager new market for a range of products
beyond the food and medicine they are already authorized to sell.
“We cannot afford an obsolete ideological war against Cuba,” Richard Slatta, a history professor at North
Carolina State University who specializes in Latin America, wrote in an op-ed last month. “The embargo against Cuba denies North Carolina
businesses and farmers access to a major, proximate market.”
Cuba experts say many business leaders, particularly, are making the same case, especially now that the American economy has remained in the
doldrums for so long. They add that it’s an obvious second-term issue; Obama doesn’t have to worry about winning Florida again.
But for so many people in Washington, “Cuba doesn’t matter any more now,” said Ted Piccone, deputy director for foreign policy at the
Brookings Institution and a former National Security Council official. “There’s no political incentive” to change the policy — even though the
arguments for changing it are rife. Despite ample provocation, the U.S. doesn’t impose similar embargoes on other authoritarian states.
Late last month, for example, Kazakhstan said it planned to shut down the last of its independent and opposition media, meaning “pluralism
would quite simply cease to exist in this country,” Reporters Without Borders said in a news release. But has anyone talked about imposing an
embargo there?
In September, Cambodia, one of the world’s most repressive nations, sentenced Mam Sonando, a 71-year-old radio station owner, to 20 years in
jail for criticizing the government on air. He’d been broadcasting for decades. At about the same time, newspaper journalist Hang Serei Odom
was found dead in the trunk of his car, hacked to death with an ax. He had been writing about illegal logging, a long-standing problem in
Cambodia.
Despite that and much more, Obama visited Phnom Penh last month, attending an Association of Southeast Asian Nations conference. Has
anyone in Washington advocated imposing an embargo there? Suchlicki said, “Maybe we should.”
“Despite political tensions” with Venezuela, another authoritarian state in Latin America, the State Department says: “The United States remains
Venezuela’s most important trading partner. In 2011, bilateral trade topped $55.6 billion.”
The State Department endlessly debates this question about foreign aid that applies to Cuba: Cutting off aid to a nation removes any ability to
influence it, one side of the debate goes. But the counterargument is: Does that mean the U.S. should continue giving aid to a brutal, repressive
government? It’s a quandary with no clear solution.
In this debate, Egypt is the state du jour. Last month, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) issued a news release calling on “Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to immediately suspend U.S. aid to Egypt, saying ‘American taxpayer dollars should not be used to aid and abet any nation that stands
with terrorists.’” In Congress, he was hardly alone in that view, but the State Department is resisting.
Of course, the U.S. embargo of Cuba arose from a totally different set of circumstances, in 1960 at the height of the Cold War and Washington’s
unremitting opposition to Communism. Cuba was allying itself with the Soviet Union. Fidel Castro also nationalized American property on the
island. (Even as he announced the embargo, President John F. Kennedy sent his aide, Pierre Salinger, to buy him 1,000 Cuban cigars, Petit
Upmanns, in the hours before the full embargo took effect.)
After the Soviet Union fell in 1991 that reasoning fell away, but at that time the Cuba lobby in Miami was at its strongest. Looking at the embargo
today (Cuba calls it “the blockade”), its principal accomplishment is that “it has given Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro the perfect scapegoat on
which it can blame all their problems,” argued Ted Henken, a fervent Cuba expert at Baruch College in New York. A few days ago, Cuba’s
Ministry of Education asserted that “the 50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States has severely undermined the country’s education
efforts.”
Piccone said most Cubans aren’t buying that argument. “The average Cuban is not blaming
the U.S.” he said. “I’ve seen polling on this. They’re blaming the system.”
Henken said the embargo “has strengthened the revolution” and “ceded Cuban policy to the most conservative Cuban-Americans.” Even
Suchlicki acknowledges that the embargo has accomplished “nothing substantial,” though he adds: “That’s not an argument for changing it.”
Some Cuba experts argue that allowing American tourists to visit Cuba for the first time since 1960 might bring the beginnings of substantial
change by fostering greater prosperity. They point to China, a passive agrarian society until the government opened the economy, pulling millions
of Chinese out of poverty. Suddenly, these newly prosperous people began standing up to their government, demanding greater freedom and
opportunities. The same could be true for Cuba, Henken said.
President Raúl Castro has opened the economy a bit, allowing more free enterprise. But apparently wary of this threat, his efforts have been small,
cautious and halting.
The changes “are only half-hearted in the sense that [Cuban officials] are taking it slow,” Piccone said. “The want to manage it; they don’t want
to undermine their political position.”
Henken jokingly calls Suchlicki “old Ironsides ” for his continuing support of the embargo. Most
Cuban-Americans of
Suchlicki’s era agree with his position. In Henken’s view, though, “it’s really hard to keep
justifying it since it hasn’t borne any fruit.” Cuban-Americans seem to be coming to the
same view. A recent poll by Florida International University in Miami showed that just 50 percent of Cuban-Americans still support the
embargo, “well below its heyday,” the university said in a news release. “This, despite 80 percent believing that the
embargo has not worked very well or not well at all.”
“We ought to change our tactics,” Piccone said, and “think of other ways to support our
goals.”
Right now, though, Cuba and the embargo are not occupying even a moment of attention in
Washington, given the urgent concerns about Iran, North Korea, the fiscal cliff and so much else. But that will almost certainly change
next month.
In October, the Cuban government gave its people permission to travel at will beginning in mid-January. Well, since 1966 the Cuban Adjustment
Act has afforded every Cuban who reaches the United States by any means automatic refugee asylum. Now, with travel to the U.S. legalized, some
in Congress — including outgoing Rep. David Rivera (R-Fla.), a fervent embargo supporter — are talking about hurriedly revising the act before
the new Cuban law takes effect next month and thousands of Cubans begin stepping off airplanes.
Suddenly Cuba could be thrust to center stage in Washington again. That may prove to be the time, some experts say, when serious discussion of
the embargo could be on the table again, for the first time in more than 50 years.
If anything, normalization can only be positive
Marjorie Arons-Barron 14
Marjorie Arons-Barron, a blog on politics, media and culture “Cuba: Obama’s push for legacy,” December 19, 2014, Marjorie Arons-Barron,
http://marjoriearonsbarron.com/2014/12/19/cuba-obamas-push-for-legacy/NV
Hmm, the country has an authoritarian regime, a Communist credo, a record of human
rights violations, no open elections or free press, and we’re liberalizing relations with it?
How can we do that? Well, it worked with China, Richard Nixon’s legacy foreign policy initiative. And
Vietnam too. Why not with Cuba? To paraphrase President Obama, our hardline embargo
and lack of diplomatic relations for five decades hasn’t
dramatically improved political conditions in Cuba.
Why think that continuing the approach will bear positive results.
New, more relaxed regulations have still to be worked out in a whole range of issues. What will be the rules for U.S. businesses eager to tap new
markets? What will be resolved regarding lands confiscated by the Castro regime, many owned by people who are now American citizens? Will
We do
have diplomatic relations with Sudan. Consistency has never been our strong suit, so why
fear flexibility in Cuba relations?
Cuba be taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism? Oddly, North Korean was taken off, while Iran, Syria, and Sudan are on.
This move toward normalization shouldn’t come as a surprise. President George W. Bush
had allowed some limited medical supplies and agricultural products to go from the United
States to Cuba. President Obama has talked in vague terms for years about his goal of
accelerating normalization. Tea readers have seen bits of evidence gathering for the last year, including President Obama’s
shaking hands with President Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela’s funeral. Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson will visit Havana next
month. In April, Cuba will, for the first time in half a century, attend the Organization of American States meeting in Panama. Feedback to this
week’s announcement from other Latin American countries has been positive.
Negative reaction from older Cuban Americans is understandable. They, and their families, suffered horribly at the hands of the Castro brothers
and their compatriots. They view the President’s move as caving in before any reassurances of Cuba’s willingness to institute reforms. Younger
Cuban Americans are more positive. But scalability and reasonability must be integral to
what the United States does.
There are immediate opportunities for cooperation. Cuba’s doctors have been poster
children for the island’s health care system and have played a key role in fighting ebola in
Africa. But on the home front, Cuba’s economy is shaky, with many household necessities in scarce supply.
Tourism from the nearby United States, limited now to specific arts and culture groups licensed to travel there, could expand dramatically under
loosened restrictions, bringing money to ordinary people to ease their daily lives, if the money really gets to them. (My husband and I are going
with a “people-to-people” group this winter, a trip planned last summer. It may be too soon to use U.S. credit cards there, but, yes, we may be
able to bring back Cuban cigars when we go.
The embargo imposed by the Helms-Burton law in 1996 can’t be lifted without
Congressional input. The real question is whether Raul Castro can make incremental moves
quickly enough to reassure Congress. The release of political prisoners, including Alan Gross, is step one, but it is a step in
the right direction. Years from now, normalization with Cuba could be regarded as a positive aspect
of Barack Obama’s legacy.
El diablo está en los detalles.
AT: Cuba Scenario --- No Normalization / Lifting of Embargo
Congress will never normalize
Nachemson 7/1
Andrew Nachemson, staff writer for the Washington Times, “Embargo remains major hurdle in U.S.-Cuba thaw,” July 1, 2015, The Washington
Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/cuba-embargo-remains-hurdle-in-us-cuba-thaw/?page=all/NV
The embassies may be reopening, but the embargo will take a lot longer to come down .
President Obama
paired the announcement of renewed diplomatic ties with Havana at the
White House Wednesday with a call for Congress to end the economic embargo, but U.S. business
groups anxious to crack the Cuban market say it’s already clear the economic track will lag behind the political one for the president. Cuban
President Raul Castro underscored the point himself Wednesday.
“There could be no normal relations between Cuba and the United States as long as the economic, commercial and financial blockade continues
to be fully implemented,” Mr. Castro said.
But, without the approval of Congress, Obama cannot lift the economic embargo currently
levied against Cuba. Many in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, are opposed to
restoring diplomatic ties
with the Communist island nation.
The dissenters cite the Cuban government’s human rights violations, harboring of American
fugitives, and seizure of American-owned property without compensation. Even the
president’s embassy move is in jeopardy , as Congress must approve any public spending on
the American embassy in Havana.
Public opinion, on the other hand, seems to be embracing the changes. According to a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs, two in three Americans support ending the trade embargo.
Won’t normalize – not enough funds
Snell 7/6
Snell, 7/6/15 (Kelsey, Washington Post.com, “How Republicans want to defund Obama's legacy ; Republicans want to use the appropriations process to
prevent the White House from moving forward on a long list of policy priorities,” Factiva/NV)
Republicans are planning to use the annual spending bills to challenge some of President
Obama's best-loved policies, adding another layer to a budget battle that already promises to
be messy as the two parties fight over how much money to spend on domestic programs.
The fiscal 2016 spending bills moving through the
House and Senate are filled with attempts to block or defund
a slew of Obama administration initiatives, including environmental rules, the effort to renew
diplomatic ties with Cuba and a Labor Department proposal to crackdown on the retirement savings industry.
While using so-called policy riders on appropriations bills is a time-honored tradition on Capitol Hill, Republicans
have signaled they
plan to be extra aggressive this year now that they control both chambers of Congress and
Obama's second term is running out.
The first order of business is figuring out an end to
the stalemate over the top-line spending level for the fiscal 2016 appropriations bills,
something that could take until the end of the calendar year. Obama is threatening to veto any bill that conforms to
When the fight over these policy-riders will come to a head is unclear.
the Republican budget plan approved by Congress earlier this year. Senate Democrats are also threatening to filibuster any appropriations bill until a broader
deal is reached allowing for more spending on domestic programs.
As negotiations over the broader funding battle progress, at some point in the coming months the policy-riders will likely lead to a showdown between
Republicans and Obama.
What follows is a list of which ones could prove most contentious.
Cuba. The Cold War may be long over, but last week's announcement that the United States
and Cuba will open embassies later this month after more than a half-century of diplomatic isolation fueled anger among
many Republicans, who are already upset over the administration's announcement in
December that it planned to renew diplomatic ties with the communist country.
The GOP is seeking to thwart the administration's Cuba agenda by denying funding for key
programs.
For instance, the House State and Foreign Operations spending bill includes language banning funds for a new embassy and its operations.
And denying money for opening an embassy in Cuba isn't the only way Republicans are
targeting Obama's aspirations in Cuba. Rep. Mario-Diaz Balart (R-Fla.), the son of Cuban immigrants, added
language to the Commerce, Justice and Science spending bill that would prevent the United
States from providing military assistance to Cuba and to the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development bill that would block U.S. airlines and cruise ships from travelling to the
island.
"We must not permit the exploitation of properties stolen by the Castro regime, which is expressly prohibited in U.S. law," Diaz-Balart said in a statement.
Republicans in the Senate are expected to include similar provisions in their spending bills.
"I will do all in my power to block the use of funds to open an embassy in Cuba," Appropriations
Committee member Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote in a tweet in December. "Normalizing relations with Cuba is bad idea at a bad time."
Congress really hate the idea of lifting the embargo
Maloy 7/2
Simon Maloy, the Salon’s political writer, “GOP’s dead-end Cuba gamble: Republicans’ Cold War-era tough talk won’t come to anything,” July 2,
2015, Salon, http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/gops_dead_end_cuba_gamble_republicans_cold_war_era_tough_talk_wont_come_to_anything/NV
After winning a great victory for communism with the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies, Barack Obama
went for broke this week and surrendered to Cuba, thus ending the Cold War in a crippling defeat for global capitalism. ¡Que viva la gran
revolución! ¡Venceremos!
Okay, maybe that’s not precisely what happened. But what did happen is that the
White House followed through on a
key portion of the president’s plan to normalize relations with our tiny communist island neighbor. In a Rose
Garden ceremony yesterday, Obama officially announced that the United States and Cuba would open embassies in Havana and Washington,
DC. That announcement came just over a month after Cuba was removed from the State
Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.
That’s two big changes to the United States’ Cuba policy, which had remained essentially
unchanged for 50 years and made precisely zero progress towards its goal of dislodging the Castro regime. But
Republicans in Congress and the 2016 presidential field are, as is their wont, pushing back
on the president and insisting that we stick with what hasn’t been working. The two Cuban-American
Republican presidential candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, vowed to block Senate confirmation of any
ambassador to Cuba. House Speaker John Boehner said “relations with the Castro regime should not
be revisited, let alone normalized, until Cubans enjoy freedom – and not one second sooner.”
2016 hopeful Carly Fiorina outdid everyone, promising to Hugh Hewitt that as president she would close the U.S. embassy in Cuba.
I guess it’s
not entirely surprising that the GOP would still be so gung-ho about fighting the
Cold War more than two decades after it ended. But there’s no real reason to think that all this tough talk and posturing
on Cuba will amount to anything, even if a Republican wins the White House in 2016.
The reason is simple: corporate America very strongly approves of Obama’s plans to open up Cuba, and Republicans try very hard to not piss off
the business community too much. For half a century the island has just been sitting there off the Florida coast, a market completely shut off from
thorough exploitation by American business interests. Those same business interests would love nothing more than to see the 50-year trade
embargo come crashing down, but Obama
can’t unilaterally end it because Bill Clinton stupidly gave up the
executive branch’s authority over the embargo back in 1996. The only way to end the Cuba
embargo is for Congress to vote to kill it, and statements like the one from the House
Speaker quoted above don’t lead one to believe that that will happen any time soon. But America’s
corporate masters are apparently massing their armies of lobbyists to try and convince enough Republicans in Congress to give up on this
obsolete relic from the Kennedy administration.
Too many roadblocks to lifting the embargo
Marple 7/7
Marple, 7/7/15 --- Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Olivia, ForeignAffairs.co.nz, “Roadblocks Remain in US-Cuba
Rapprochement,” Factiva/NV)
Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba will finally be restored on
July 20, when Washington reopens its
embassy in Havana after more than 50 years of political turmoil between the two countries. Cuba will also open its embassy in
Washington that day, and John Kerry will visit Havana, making him the first U.S. secretary of state to go to Cuba in 70 years.[1]
This is a step in the right direction in regard to US-Cuban policy since the U.S. embargo, which was enacted in the early 1960s, has not been successful in
bringing about regime change or some version of the Washington Consensus in Cuba.[2] “It hasn’t worked for 50 years,” Obama said in his announcement
from the Rose Garden last week. “It shuts America out of Cuba’s future, and it only makes life worse for the Cuban people.”[3]
Instead of naming an ambassador right away, the Obama Administration announced it would make Jeffery DeLaurentis its charge d’affaires. DeLaurentis has
led the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba beginning last year. Senators
(R-TX) have
and presidential candidates Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz
declared they will oppose any ambassador that Obama nominates.[4]
These Republicans
and other critics of the normalization process between the two countries
argue that Obama is legitimizing the government of Raúl Castro without attempting to seek guarantees of
improvement in human rights on the island. Rubio has been especially indignant about the easing in relations,
insisting that it is “important that pro-democracy activities not be sacrificed in the name of ‘diplomacy’ just so that we can change the name of a building from
‘Interest Section’ to ‘Embassy.’”[5]
While this condemnation on Rubio’s part certainly makes him appear tough on governments that do not share Washington’s values, it does not offer any real
solution to the problems dissenting Cubans face and ignores the valuable cultural exchange that can take place through increased levels of tourism and bilateral
economic transaction.
The number of Americans who visited Cuba between January 1 and May 9 this year increased 36 percent compared to the same period in 2014.[6] Although
the result of this influx of American tourists remains to be seen, it appears that if critics like Rubio want Cuba to inherit American ideals, contact between the
countries would be a good start.
As part of the agreement between the United States and Cuba, Cuba has agreed to relax restrictions on Internet access, and, in fact, the American media
streaming site Netflix announced Cubans can now stream its content.[7] Although independent Cuban websites are still blocked, this increase in Internet
freedoms will most likely snowball into greater access.[8]
It should be noted that this exchange of ideas will not only be one way, and it should not be assumed that Cuban citizens will be the only ones learning from
American tourists and companies. For example, Cuba provides healthcare for “all segments of the population” and still manages to boast a medical system
with “results similar to those of the most developed nations.”[9] Its education system enjoys success as well; its literacy rate is 99.8 percent, far above many of
its Caribbean neighbors.[10]
In addition to the Republicans’ opposition to appointing an ambassador, another roadblock
to complete normalization is the fact that the embargo can only be completely lifted by
Congress, which is currently Republican-controlled .[11] Obama cannot lift these sanctions
against Cuba himself because in 1996 former President Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton law,
which declared the embargo could only be lifted by a majority of votes in Congress.[12]
This illustrates that, despite
the progress made on Obama’s part, barriers remain. Rubio and other
critics of this rapprochement are only gumming up a process
that could actually result in some of the increased
human rights and democratic changes they have been calling for.
Won’t pass
LaFranchi 15
Howard LaFranchi, a reporter in the Monitor’s Washington Bureau, “US flag to fly over Havana again, but that won't end America's Cuba debate
(+video),” July 1, 2015, The Christian Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2015/0701/US-flag-to-fly-over-Havana-againbut-that-won-t-end-America-s-Cuba-debate-video/NV
WASHINGTON — The
United States and Cuba may have agreed Wednesday to open embassies in
each other’s capital for the first time in half a century, but that doesn’t mean it will be all
salsa music and humdrum diplomacy between the two longtime adversaries anytime soon .
President Obama emphasized that “very serious differences” remain between the two neighboring countries, particularly on human rights and
democracy, as he announced a long-awaited accord between the two governments Wednesday. The agreement will allow each country’s existing
diplomatic offices in Washington and Havana to reopen as full-fledged embassies as of July 20.
“I believe that American engagement – through our embassy, our businesses, and most of all, through our people – is the best way to advance our
interests and support for democracy and human rights,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday in a Rose Garden speech.
Cuba is one of a number of key foreign-policy issues – Iran and Iraq also come to mind – in which Obama has sought to get beyond what he has
seen as mistaken policies of the past. Such a foreign policy emphasizes trying diplomacy where, to the president’s thinking, isolation and
unilateral action have not worked. And in each instance, whether
Cuba or Iran, it is still being hotly debated, with
some vaunting and others vilifying the approach.
That debate promises to figure prominently in the 2016 presidential election, and the
emotional topic of Cuba is sure to stand out.
On Wednesday, several
Republican presidential hopefuls – most notably two from Florida, with its politically crucial
quick to blast the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba
as a gift to a repressive regime.
Cuban-American population – were
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
said diplomatic ties “will legitimize repression in Cuba, not promote
the cause of freedom and democracy.”
Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio criticized the Obama administration for being so eager to open an embassy in Havana
that it has “continued to look the other way and offer concession after concession” as the Cuban government “has stepped up its repression of the
Cuban people.”
Insisting the US got nothing from the Cubans in the six months of negotiations since Obama announced his intention to renew diplomatic
relations, Senator Rubio
said, “It is time for our unilateral concessions to this odious regime to
end.”
That theme of the US giving up much to an adversary for little or nothing in return can also be heard in reference to Iran and the negotiations to
limit its nuclear program.
Most Democrats, on the other hand, hailed the reopening of the Havana and Washington embassies by echoing Obama’s foreign-policy
conviction that America’s isolation of adversaries does little to resolve differences with them – while causing problems with allies who oppose
unilateral steps like the 50-year-old US trade embargo on Cuba.
“Embargo and isolation failed to bring fundamental change to Cuba and have instead become a source of friction between the United States and
our partners in the Western Hemisphere and across the globe,” said Sen. Christopher Murphy (D) of Connecticut in a statement.
Preserving America’s global stature, Senator Murphy added, “depends on strong diplomatic relationships and a willingness to learn from both our
successes and our ... missteps in particular – from the failed isolation of Cuba to the disastrous occupation of Iraq.”
What Congress is expected to do
Even as the political debate over Cuba continues, the Republican-controlled Congress is
expected to try to thwart Obama’s opening to Cuba as best it can – largely through its
control of government purse strings.
Congress can’t stop the reestablishing of full diplomatic ties with Cuba. On Wednesday, in fact, Secretary
of State John Kerry said he will travel to Havana “later this summer” to mark both “the raising of the Stars and Stripes” over the embassy and “the
beginning of a new era of a new relationship with the Cuban people.”
It will be the first time since 1945 that a secretary of State has visited Havana, Mr. Kerry noted.
Still, Congress can continue to place roadblocks on the way to a deeper US diplomatic
presence in Cuba .
A number of funding bills for US government departments have been amended in the House
to limit any expansion of operations in Cuba. Most critically, State Department funding for US diplomats operating in
Cuba has been frozen – even though the State Department won Havana’s OK to boost the number of US diplomats in Cuba as part of the
transition to a full-fledged embassy.
“It would be a shame if Congress impeded implementation of some of the very things we all agree we want to do,” says a senior State Department
official, referring to the ability to “reach out all over the island” with a beefed-up embassy staff.
AT: Cuba Scenario --- Appeasement Turn
Lifting the embargo makes the US look weak internationally
Campbell 15
Greg Campbell, contributor for tpnn, “Ten GREAT Reasons the U.S. Should NOT Lift the Embargo on Cuba,” January 16, 2015, tpnn,
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/16/ten-great-reasons-the-u-s-should-not-lift-the-embargo-on-cuba/NV
As President Obama continues to dismantle what has stood as diplomatic bedrock for each and every
president for the last fifty-plus years, Cuban leaders wait with hushed anticipation of the day when
the U.S. will finally lift the economic embargo on the island that remains a bastion of Communist government just 90 miles off
our shores.
While it is unfortunate that so many must
remain imprisoned on this island, stuck under the oppressive rule of this despotic Castro regime, the surest hope for
their ultimate freedom is for the breaking of the Communist stranglehold on Cuban citizens, not to
facilitate the survival of this method of tyrannous government.
To be clear, the citizens of Cuba are not to blame for this system of government.
Though President Obama and his assorted band of “yes men” and other diplomatic weaklings head towards lifting the Cuban embargo, Jim Meyers at
Newsmax.com compiled a list of compelling reasons why those on the right andleft ought to be in favor of maintaining the embargo:
1. Lifting the embargo would benefit the Cuban people far less than the Castro regime. Most of the Cuban economy is owned by the government and all
foreign trade is channeled through its agencies. Companies pay wages in hard currency, including dollars and euros, but the government pays workers in Cuban
pesos — 500 pesos is worth around $21 USD — and then pockets about 90 percent of the wages.
2. Decades of trade between Cuba and market economies in Europe, Canada, and Latin America have not produced the political and economic benefits to the
people that embargo opponents say a lifting of the sanctions would produce. What they have done is line the pockets of the Castro government. Corruption,
not the embargo, denies people the benefits of trade.
3. Opening
up trade with Cuba would lead the United States into dealings with a “deadbeat”
nation that refuses to honor its commitments. Cuba has defaulted on its estimated $37 billion
debt to the Paris Club of nations. Russia has been forced to write off Cuba’s $32 billion debt,
and Mexico wrote off $340 million of Cuba’s debt.
4. Cuba
has not released all the political prisoners Obama said the regime had promised to
free during recent Cuban-American discussions. Estimates are that there are more than 6,000
political detainees in Cuba, among the world’s highest per capital, and some 65,000 prison inmates altogether.
5. Ending
the embargo would be a blow to American values. Americans want free trade with free people and not
relations that strengthen an authoritarian regime’s oppression of its people.
6.
Lifting the embargo without getting concessions from Cuba would make the United States
appear weak . According to U.S. law, Cuba must legalize all political activity, release
political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections, grant freedom of the press, and allow labor unions. Cuba has
not met these conditions. Lifting the sanctions unilaterally would send the message that
America is willing to appease an oppressive regime . Moreover, the embargo enables the
United States to continue to pressure the Cuban government to improve human rights .
7. The embargo does not prevent Americans from providing assistance to the Cuban people. American policy allows people to visit family members and send
money to relatives in Cuba. Over $3.5 billion in remittances are sent to Cuban families each year.
8. Cuba remains on the U.S. “State Sponsors of Terrorism” list. Cuba has provided sanctuary for terrorists from other nations and harbored American
fugitives. Black Panther activist and convicted murderer JoAnne Chesimard is among the 90 or more criminals who fled America and received political asylum
in Cuba.
9. The
United States should not lift the embargo until a new leader is in place in Cuba. Fidel Castro
The embargo could be used
as a bargaining chip when a new leader takes power.
turned over control to his brother Raul, but Raul is over 80 years old and it is unclear who would succeed him.
10. The American people oppose lifting the embargo. A poll last year found that a slight majority still want the sanctions to remain in place. More importantly,
an even larger majority of Cuban-Americans, those who understand the situation best, favor keeping the embargo in place.
{Insert the Russia Scenario here}
AT: Cuba Scenario --- Human Rights Turn
Turn – the embargo is key to stop human rights violations
Campbell 15
Greg Campbell, contributor for tpnn, “Ten GREAT Reasons the U.S. Should NOT Lift the Embargo on Cuba,” January 16, 2015, tpnn,
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/16/ten-great-reasons-the-u-s-should-not-lift-the-embargo-on-cuba/NV
As President Obama continues to dismantle what has stood as diplomatic bedrock for each and every
president for the last fifty-plus years, Cuban leaders wait with hushed anticipation of the day when
the U.S. will finally lift the economic embargo on the island that remains a bastion of Communist government just 90 miles off
our shores.
While it is unfortunate that so many must
remain imprisoned on this island, stuck under the oppressive rule of this despotic Castro regime, the surest hope for
their ultimate freedom is for the breaking of the Communist stranglehold on Cuban citizens, not to
facilitate the survival of this method of tyrannous government.
To be clear, the citizens of Cuba are not to blame for this system of government.
Though President Obama and his assorted band of “yes men” and other diplomatic weaklings head towards lifting the Cuban embargo, Jim Meyers at
Newsmax.com compiled a list of compelling reasons why those on the right andleft ought to be in favor of maintaining the embargo:
1. Lifting the embargo would benefit the Cuban people far less than the Castro regime. Most of the Cuban economy is owned by the government and all
foreign trade is channeled through its agencies. Companies pay wages in hard currency, including dollars and euros, but the government pays workers in Cuban
pesos — 500 pesos is worth around $21 USD — and then pockets about 90 percent of the wages.
2. Decades of trade between Cuba and market economies in Europe, Canada, and Latin America have not produced the political and economic benefits to the
people that embargo opponents say a lifting of the sanctions would produce. What they have done is line the pockets of the Castro government. Corruption,
not the embargo, denies people the benefits of trade.
3. Opening up trade with Cuba would lead the United States into dealings with a “deadbeat” nation that refuses to honor its commitments. Cuba has defaulted
on its estimated $37 billion debt to the Paris Club of nations. Russia has been forced to write off Cuba’s $32 billion debt, and Mexico wrote off $340 million of
Cuba’s debt.
4. Cuba
has not released all the political prisoners Obama said the regime had promised to
free during recent Cuban-American discussions. Estimates are that there are more than 6,000
political detainees in Cuba, among the world’s highest per capital, and some 65,000 prison inmates altogether.
5. Ending
the embargo would be a blow to American values. Americans want free trade with free people and not
relations that strengthen an authoritarian regime’s oppression of its people.
According to U.S. law, Cuba
must legalize all political activity, release political prisoners, commit to free and fair
6. Lifting the embargo without getting concessions from Cuba would make the United States appear weak.
elections, grant freedom of the press, and allow labor unions. Cuba has not met these
conditions.
Lifting the sanctions unilaterally would send the message that America is willing to appease an oppressive regime.
Moreover,
the embargo enables the United States to continue to pressure the Cuban government to
improve human rights .
7. The embargo does not prevent Americans from providing assistance to the Cuban people. American policy allows people to visit family members and send
money to relatives in Cuba. Over $3.5 billion in remittances are sent to Cuban families each year.
8. Cuba remains on the U.S. “State Sponsors of Terrorism” list. Cuba has provided sanctuary for terrorists from other nations and harbored American
fugitives. Black Panther activist and convicted murderer JoAnne Chesimard is among the 90 or more criminals who fled America and received political asylum
in Cuba.
9. The
United States should not lift the embargo until a new leader is in place in Cuba. Fidel Castro
The embargo could be used
as a bargaining chip when a new leader takes power.
turned over control to his brother Raul, but Raul is over 80 years old and it is unclear who would succeed him.
10. The American people oppose lifting the embargo. A poll last year found that a slight majority still want the sanctions to remain in place. More importantly,
an even larger majority of Cuban-Americans, those who understand the situation best, favor keeping the embargo in place.
Lifting it just leads to more oppression – last 7 months prove
Gonzalez 7/7
Mike Gonzalez, writer for Newsweek, “Cuban Rights Protestors Bloodily Beaten in Havana,” July 7, 2015, Newsweek,
http://www.newsweek.com/cuban-rights-protesters-bloodily-beaten-havana-351091/NV
When President Obama
confidently asserted, “This is what change looks like,” during his Cuba
embassy announcement on July 1, he couldn’t possibly have had in mind the picture of a
bloodied and bandaged Antonio Rodiles.
And yet, the dissident leader warned Obama that very day in a tweet that appeasement
meant more repression of dissidents.
Rodiles had to be operated on overnight to repair his nose after receiving a beating at the
hands of state security agents. He was arrested on July 5 along with 20 other people who had
the temerity to march to Mass demanding that human rights and individual freedom be respected in Castro’s
Caribbean island Gulag.
His prophetic tweet to Obama and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power the day of the announcement simply asked, “ How
to talk about
engagement after 11 Sundays of strong repression.”
Rodiles was responding to Obama’s statement, “I strongly believe that the best way for America to support our values is through engagement,”
which the White House tweeted out and Power retweeted.
My retweet of Rodiles said, “.@AmbassadorPower @BarackObama Pls listen to this dissident. He risks his life every day in #Cuba. Do u know
better?”
And that’s just it: Apparently they think they do.
It’s either this
hubristic belief that Obama and the people around him know better about how to
advance democracy and human rights than the Cubans actually fighting for it, or they think
that dissidents like Rodiles are a nuisance that get in the way of the state-to-state exchanges
between the grownups.
There is sadly a history of such dismissal of democratic forces for this administration. Its very
first on the world stage was to stand by as pro-democracy demonstrators took to the streets of Tehran.
The White House was not even swayed by the gruesome murder of dissident Neda Agha
Soltan. So why would it have a moment of contrition over Rodiles’s broken nose?
For this
arrogant belief in their own intrinsic knowledge of how to bring democracy to Cuba—
or the worse dismissal of those suffering for speaking their minds—Obama has broken the law by
attempting to open an embassy in Havana.
The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 requires the fulfillment of two conditions before the restoration of diplomatic
relations. The first is that the president must determine that “a transition to a democratically elected government in Cuba has begun.” Not even
Secretary of State John Kerry in his worst moments of euphoria could make this claim.
The second condition is “the satisfactory resolution of property claims by a Cuban Government recognized by the United States.” The Castro
regime’s seizure of some $8 billion in U.S. assets remains the largest theft in U.S. history.
The 12th Sunday of repression in Cuba is unlikely to stop Obama’s legitimization of the
Castros, just like skullduggery on the part of the mullahs will not slow down the rush “to get
an agreement” with Iran.
Congress, on the other hand, has a responsibility to make sure that the president acts within the law and does not “fundamentally transform”
America’s history of supporting democracy and freedom.
Removing embargo won’t change anything
Washington Post 7/1
Washington Post, “Despite Mr. Obama’s ‘engagement,’ Cuba continues its repression,” July 1, 2015, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/opinions/the-reality-in-cuba/2015/07/01/5b891ba2-1b6a-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html/NV
IN ANNOUNCING the reopening of the U.S. embassy in Havana, President Obama said
“nobody expects Cuba to be transformed overnight” by his policy of “engagement.” That’s just as
well because in the first six months of Mr. Obama’s normalization of relations with the Communist regime,
most indicators of human rights on the island have moved in the wrong direction.
Since December, there have been more than 3,000 political detentions in Cuba, including 641
in May and 220 on Sunday alone, according to dissident sources. Most were accompanied by beatings; at
least 20 detainees required medical treatment in May. After Cuba was invited for the first time to the Summit of the
Americas in Panama, regime thugs attacked the civil society activists who also showed up.
“Some of us had hoped . . . that there would be a stop to — or at least a lessening of — the
beatings” of peaceful demonstrators, wrote activist Mario Lleonart recently, “but we now
know that what is happening is precisely the opposite.”
Visits by Americans to Cuba are reportedly up by a third, including plenty of political delegations. But in
the months after Mr.
Obama announced the diplomatic opening in December, there was also a 120 percent
increase in Cubans seeking to flee to the United States. Many worry that once relations are
normalized, the United States will stop accepting refugees; according to recent polling, more than half
of Cubans would like to leave the country.
Mr. Obama eased regulations on U.S. food sales, but imports of American food to the island, controlled by the state, dropped by half in the first
three months of 2015, compared with last year. Netflix announced that Cubans could stream its service — but the charge for an hour of access to
one of the few government-controlled Internet hotspots equals 10 percent of a typical government worker’s monthly salary, and independent
Cuban Web sites are blocked.
We don’t oppose diplomatic contacts or U.S. embassies in countries such as Cuba, in
principle. But the results of Mr. Obama’s initiative so far underline the opportunity he
missed in not requiring even modest alleviation of the dictatorship’s repression in exchange
for what amounts to a political and economic bailout of a failing regime. Mr. Obama could have sought a
guarantee, for example, that the Ladies in White, formed by the families of political prisoners, be allowed to carry out their peaceful weekly
marches without arrests or beatings; as it is, attacks on the group have increased sharply.
The State Department also could have insisted that U.S. diplomats have unrestricted access
to average Cubans and could have rejected the regime’s demands that ongoing democracy
programs be canceled. Instead, a senior U.S. official said that, while access would improve, the State Department had accepted
“constraints” on personnel in Cuba similar to those in other “restrictive environments.”
Thanks to congressional opposition, no U.S. ambassador to Cuba may be confirmed anytime soon. But Mr. Obama himself, according to his
spokesman, is eager to visit Havana. We’d like to hope that the president will restrain himself until the Castro regime shows some sign of
delivering the improvements in human rights he says are the goal of his outreach. So
looking entirely one-sided.
far, U.S.-Cuba rapprochement is
AT: Cuba Scenario --- Lifting Embargo Increases Structural
Violence
Lifting in the embargo only increases structural violence
Jacoby 7/8
Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe, “Cubans pay the price for Obama’s ‘engagement’ with the Castros,” July 8, 2015, Boston Globe,
http://www.therealcuba.com/NV
On July 1, President Obama announced the formal resumption of diplomatic relations with
Cuba, asserting confidently that “American engagement . . . is the best way to advance our interests
and support for democracy and human rights.”
On July 5, the Communist regime in Havana delivered its customary response. It arrested more than
80 democratic dissidents, including at least 60 members of Ladies in White, a peaceful group of brave
women who march weekly in support of husbands, fathers, and other relatives imprisoned in the Castros’ jails. Many of those
detained were hurt, some severely. One prominent human rights activist, Antonio Rodiles, was sent to the
hospital with a shattered nose; he had reportedly been handcuffed by security forces, then beaten for shouting
“Long live freedom” and “Long live human rights.”
There had been even more arrests and beatings in the days leading up to Obama’s Rose
Garden statement. Some 225 Cuban dissidents across the island were arrested the previous
Sunday, with Ladies in White again prominent among those targeted. In fact, there have been police actions against Cuban democrats for 12
Sundays in a row — the government makes a point of going after dissidents as they walk to Mass or
emerge from church holding photos of imprisoned loved ones.
Like most US advocates of normalizing relations with the only all-out dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere, Obama claims that warming up to
the Castro regime is the most effective way to promote freedom and liberal reform in Cuba. When he announced last
December that ties
president declared that “we can do more to
support the Cuban people and promote our values through engagement.” Now, nearly seven months later, he
reiterates “America’s enduring support for universal values, like freedom of speech and assembly,” and he
insists that his administration “will not hesitate to speak out when we see actions that
contradict those values.”
between Havana and Washington were going to be restored, the
No? Over the past seven months, life for Cuba’s people has grown even more unfree. Yet far
from forthrightly condemning the repression, Obama serenely counsels patience: “Nobody expects
Cuba to be transformed overnight,” he says.
There have been more than 3,000 political detentions on the island since last December,
according to The Washington Post. The paper quotes Mario Felix Lleonart, a Cuban Baptist pastor who laments that he, like many, “had hoped,
following the announcement about normalizing relations between the US and Cuba, that there would be a stop to — or at least a lessening of —
the beatings” of dissidents. “We now know that what is happening is precisely the opposite.”
The policy that Obama now embraces is also “precisely the opposite” of the one he feigned to uphold as a candidate for president.
Once upon a time, Obama maintained that there would be no American embassy in Havana
until all of Cuba’s political prisoners were free. Now he trumpets John Kerry’s forthcoming trip to Havana “to proudly
raise the American flag over our embassy once more,” even as Cuba continues to lock up men and women for daring to seek the democratic
liberties Americans take for granted.
The Obama administration is bestowing tremendous gifts on Cuba’s rulers: diplomatic legitimation, a
public-relations triumph, an influx of hard currency, and expanded influence in Washington. All this the Castros are getting in
exchange for nothing: no elections, no free press, no end to beating peaceful protesters, no
justice for the many victims of Cuban totalitarianism.
“Castroism has won,” mourned the Cuban dissident Yoani Sánchez last winter, when Obama announced
an end to America’s principled policy on Cuba. If it wasn’t obvious then, it is now.
AT: Russia Impact
No Russia war – five warrants
Margossian 14
Maral Margossian, a columnist for Massachusetts Daily Collegian, “Five reasons why Russia won’t start World War III,” March 27, 2014, The
Massachusetts Daily Collegian, http://dailycollegian.com/2014/03/27/five-reasons-why-russia-wont-start-world-war-iii/NV
The recent events in Eastern Europe involving Russia and Ukraine have spawned, at their most
extreme, apocalyptic claims. Here are five reasons why Russia won’t start World War III, or any
other war for that matter:
1. The world is MAD. The end of World War II ushered the world into a precarious atomic age that
characterized the international atmosphere during the Cold War. Luckily, the Cold War never escalated to
nuclear war. Why? Because of mutually assured destruction (or MAD). Russia knows that if it
pushes that big red button, we have our own even bigger, redder button to push in retaliation. The
odds of a nuclear war with Russia are extremely unlikely.
2. The impact of economic sanctions on the Russian economy is far too crippling for Russia
to fund a war. As a part of a globalized world, economic sanctions are more than mere slaps on the wrist. Already the sanctions
imposed on Russia have begun to take their toll. The West has yet to attack Russia’s strongest economic assets, but the
declining strength of the Russian economy puts Putin far from a position to wage a world
war.
3. Putin’s actions demonstrate his longing for Russia’s glory days before the fall of the Soviet
Union. His annexation of Crimea is more out of fear than strength. Putin feels threatened by Russia’s changing
role in world affairs and is using Crimea to tell the world that Russia still matters.
4. Russia is already seen as the “big bad wolf” of Europe. Though Putin may have been nominated for the Nobel
Peace Prize for his involvement in the Syrian chemical weapons deal, Russia’s popularity among many Western countries
is not very high. The recent suspension of Russia from the G8 group is a symbolic action
that demonstrates that Russia will have to face a united front of world powers if it chooses to
start a war.
5. There is just too much at stake. War between Ukraine and Russia is one thing; Russia’s military is
large enough and strong enough to easily defeat Ukraine. However, if Russia decides to take further aggressive
action, it must also contend with surrounding European Union member nations and their potential
involvement in the war. Moreover, Russia’s involvement in other international affairs will be affected. For example, the ongoing effort to normalize relations
Crimea may have symbolic
meaning close to the hearts of Russians, but it isn’t worth risking the domino effect of events
that can potentially occur.
between Iran and the rest of the world will be jeopardized, considering Russia is involved in those efforts.
While Russia’s actions can’t be brushed
aside and should be taken seriously, the chances of this confrontation escalating to a great
war are slim — assuming these countries act rationally.
So, those of you who feel abnormally unsettled by the recent turn of events can rest easy.