Cuba Terror List Aff
-The foundations of the advantages are here. Some borrowing from a few other files for 2ac AT:
some of the case arguments will be necessary.
PLAN 1: The United States federal government should remove Cuba from the
list of countries subject to economic penalties governed by Section 6(j) of the
Export Administration Act.
Plan 2: The executive branch of the United States federal government should
issue an executive order to remove Cuba from the list of countries subject to
economic penalties governed by Section 6 (j) of the Export Administration Act.
Plan 3: The executive branch of the United States federal government should
issue an executive order removing Cuba from the State Department State
Sponsors of Terror list.
Inherency
US renamed Cuba to the list in May – there are no plans for removal
Kasturi 13- Kasturi and Sons News service (“US keeps Cuba on state sponsors of terrorism list”, 5/2/13,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1347678013/abstract?accountid=14667)//Modermatt
The State Department has announced that Washington has no plans to remove Cuba from a
list of state sponsors of terrorism that also includes Iran, Syria and Sudan. The decision is sure to ruffle
feathers in Havana, which vehemently denies any links to terrorism. Cuba's government contends its inclusion on
the list is a political vendetta by a US government that has kept an economic embargo on the
Communist-run island for 51 years. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said
Washington "has no current plans to remove Cuba" from the list, which is included in the
department's annual report on terrorism. The report was supposed to have been released Tuesday, but has been
delayed. Officials say it is likely to come out later in May. Yesterday was a holiday in Cuba and there was no immediate comment
from the government. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban-American Republican from Florida, praised the decision to keep Cuba on
the list. It "reaffirms that the Castro regime is, and has always been, a supporter and facilitator of terrorism," she said. She criticised
the administration for not putting North Korea back on the list. The reclusive Asian country was taken off in 2008 amid negotiations
over nuclear disarmament that ultimately failed. Cuba is ostensibly included on the list because it has harboured Colombian rebels
and Basque militants as well as some aging members of American militant groups from the 1960s and '70s.
Many Cuba
watchers had speculated the time might be ripe for Cuba to get off the list, in large part
because the Cuban government is now hosting peace talks between Colombian rebels and
that country's government, while the Basque militants have announced a permanent cease-fire.
Neither the Colombian nor Spanish governments has criticized Cuba's role in their conflicts in recent years, and both countries
routinely vote against US economic sanctions on the island during a yearly vote at the United Nations. But Ventrell said the annual
report is never used to remove or add countries from the state sponsors list. Such decisions can be made at any time during the
year, he said, but added that there are no plans to alter Cuba's status in the near future.
Relations Adv.
Links –
Removing Cuba from the terror list the key first step to good relations
The Boston Globe, 2013
(2/19/2013, “Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too”, The Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-dragpolicy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html)
The Cuban-American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting
greater contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of Florida voters. Because of this
trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as Romney — has more maneuvering room politically.¶
The first step would be to end the silly claim, reinstated by the Obama administration last summer, that Cuba
remains a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The administration argued that Cuba harbored
members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. It has, but the FARC and
Colombia are now in negotiations; those peace talks are supported by the Obama White
House in order to end a bloody civil war.¶ By depoliticizing the Cuba portfolio, the United States could
then begin to lessen trade restrictions, starting with promoting cultural exchanges; ending the travel ban; and
eventually allowing for trade in oil, gas, and other commodities. Over time, billions of dollars
in new trade between the two nations will benefit both. This would include boosts to US farm companies
while helping Cubans.
Scratching Cuba from the terror list is a stepping stone to better relations
McKenna, 2013, Professor and Chair of political science at the University of
Prince Edward Island
(Peter, 4/17/2013, “Cuba Languishes on Terror List for No Good Reasons” The Chronicle Harold,
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1123835-cuba-languishes-on-terror-list-for-no-good-reason)
It’s worth mentioning that the Cuban government strongly condemned the terror attacks of 2001, offered to send medical supplies
and health care professionals in their aftermath, and acquiesced in Washington’s plan to house suspected terrorists at its
Guantanamo Bay naval facility. Havana has now unequivocally condemned the deadly Boston Marathon bombings and rejected all
forms of terrorism.¶ Surely
if North Korea could be removed from the bad-boy list in 2008 by the former
that Pakistan has never made it onto the list even though it had
sheltered Osama bin Laden for years — it is long overdue to scratch Cuba’s name off. And the
George W. Bush administration — and
Cubans have certainly strengthened their case for doing so under the leadership of Raúl Castro, who has introduced fundamental
economic and social reforms, permitted Cubans (including vocal dissidents) to travel freely abroad, opened a constructive dialogue
with the Roman Catholic Church, and released dozens of political prisoners.¶ The Canadian government, fresh from Minister John
Baird’s visit to Havana, should be using its “good offices” to convince the Americans to delist the Cubans. If successful, it would have
the salutary effect of bolstering Canada’s brand and profile in the region — a wise move given that the Harper government has
made the Americas a centrepiece of its foreign policy thrust.¶ Removing
Cuba from the terror list would also
reassure the Cubans and go some way toward resetting the U.S.-Cuba relationship on a proper
diplomatic footing. This symbolically important step, in conjunction with a series of other confidence-building
measures (such as the release of Gross), might lead to the lifting of the U.S. economic embargo against
Cuba and restore Washington’s credibility in the hemisphere.¶ Such a move would obviously be in the best
interests of Cuba, the U.S. and the wider international community.
Cuba’s inclusion on the list is a joke and represents a serious impediment to
normalized relations
Bolender 4/22- Research fellow at the Council on Heespheric Affairs, writer for the guardian
(Keith Bolender, “The Terror List, and Terrorism as Practiced Against Cuba”, Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, 4/22/13, http://www.coha.org/22355/)// EO
Of all the components to the United States hostile strategy against Cuba, nothing raises the ire
of the Castro government more than its inclusion on the State Department’s list of states that
sponsor terrorism. The designation is seen by Havana as an impediment towards improving
relations and as a cruel hypocrisy that provides political cover for Washington to justify the
imposition of economic penalties along with the perpetuation of anti-revolutionary
propaganda.¶ There is an opportunity to eliminate that stumbling block in the next few weeks, if newly appointed Secretary of
State John Kerry decides to recommend Cuba’s deletion from the list to President Obama. Kerry has until the release of the State
Department’s annual terror report on April 30 to make the determination of whether Cuba will remain on the terrorist list. High
ranking Cuban officials are closely watching this development, indicating the removal could
offer an opportunity to re-engage with the United States. [1]¶ The history of Cuba’s controversial inclusion
goes back to 1982, the same year Iraq was taken off the list by the Reagan administration. Besides Cuba, only
Sudan, Iran, and Syria continue to be labeled as state sponsors of terrorism. North Korea was dropped in 2008, while
Pakistan, long the home of Osama Bin Laden and recognized as a haven for Islamic terrorists, has never
been considered. Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from, is looked
upon as a staunch ally of the United States.¶ There are numerous reasons why the Castro
government finds its insertion on the list so galling. First are the real economic consequences to
the designation. By law the United States must oppose any loans to Cuba by the World Bank or
other international lending institutions. Obama administration officials have been using Cuba’s inclusion to make it
increasingly difficult for Havana to conduct normal banking transactions that involve U.S. financial establishments, regardless of
which currency is being used. Furthermore, the
United States has imposed an arms embargo against all
parties placed on the list (which the Castro government has experienced since the triumph of the Revolution) as well as
prohibiting sales of items that could be considered to have both military and non-military dual use, including hospital
equipment. For example, the William Soler children’s hospital in Havana was labeled a ‘denied hospital’ in 2007 by the State
Department, bringing with it serious ramifications. Various medicines and technology have become
impossible to obtain, resulting in the deaths of children and the inability of staff to properly
deal with a variety of treatable conditions. [2] For Cuba, these restrictions are additionally damaging as the island
continues to suffer from the comprehensive embargo the United States has imposed since the early 1960s .
Cuba off the terror list leads to better US relations with Latin America as a
whole
Thale and Boggs, 2013, Washington’s Office on Latin America’s Program
director and Officer for Cuba
(Geoff and Clay, 3/5/2013, “Cuba and the Terrorist List”, Washington Office on Latin America)
http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_and_the_terrorist_list
On February 21, the Boston Globe reported that senior State Department officials were considering removing Cuba from the list of
State Sponsors of Terrorism. Advocates of engagement with Cuba welcomed this news, as de-listing
Cuba would be a
constructive step toward improving U.S.-Cuba relations. But the State Department responded quickly, stating
that that the Department had “no current plans” to remove Cuba from the list. Whatever the actual state of discussions inside the
administration, this is an opportune moment to reconsider Cuba’s inclusion on the terrorist list and to look again at the broader
state of U.S.-Cuba relations.¶ In 1982, Cuba was added to the terrorist list on the grounds that the Cuban government supported
armed revolution in the Americas. Although many who advocate for keeping Cuba on the terrorist list today admit that the original
justification no longer makes sense, they allege that Cuba harbors Basque ETA members, Colombian FARC and ELN members, and
U.S. fugitives from justice. That position is increasingly difficult to defend. In the past year, Cuba has played a constructive role in the
peace talks between Colombia and the FARC that are being held in Havana. The United States has a strategic interest in the success
of these talks, and the State Department has stated that it is "supportive" of the peace process. Cuba’s
inclusion on the
terrorist list at a time in which it is instrumental in brokering peace negotiations for one of the
United States' closest allies makes U.S. foreign policy appear contradictory, if not incoherent .¶
More broadly, the U.S. approach toward Cuba, which is exemplified by Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism, hurts the U.S. image in Latin America. In recent years, Latin American leaders have
publicly questioned U.S. policy toward Cuba. At the most recent Summit of the Americas in
Cartagena, Colombia, Latin American
presidents across the political spectrum challenged President
Obama on a number of issues, including Cuba’s participation in the Summit of the Americas and drug policy. It is also
striking that Cuba is the pro tempore president of CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños), the new regional
forum that includes all of the countries of the hemisphere, except Canada and the United States. The changed geopolitical
landscape—and the symbolic importance that U.S. policy toward Cuba continues to hold for the Latin American public and elite
opinion—makes it clear that policy
change toward Cuba would improve the U.S. image in the
hemisphere.¶ Recent changes in Cuba itself strengthen the case for taking steps to improve this relationship. The United States
has long conditioned changes in U.S. policy on changes in Cuba's political and economic system (WOLA has consistently argued that
U.S. policy should change independently of changes in Cuba). But since 2011, we have seen a series of gradual but significant
changes in Cuba's economic system, including the expansion of self-employment, the reduction in state payrolls, and liberalization in
the agricultural system. Even as these economic changes took place, many doubted that Cuba would consider any changes in its
political system. But in the past year Cuba has enacted long-awaited migration reforms, and Cuban President Raúl Castro has
announced that he will retire in 2018, effectively putting an end date on the Castro era.
UQ – Relations Low
U.S.-Cuba relations are in a stalemate and will not budge anytime soon
Taylor 7/4,
(Guy Taylor, staff writer for the Washington Times, “Private talks hint at change in U.S.-Cuba
relationship,” The Washington Times, 7/4/2013,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/4/private-talks-hint-at-change-in-us-cubarelationsh/?page=3)
Together, the negotiations have some in Washington wondering whether the Obama administration is looking to break the
stalemate that has defined U.S. relations with Havana since Cuban leader Fidel Castro agreed to house Soviet
ballistic missiles in 1961. Mr. Castro, 86, stepped down in 2008, and the top post is now held by his 82-year-old brother, who has
allowed such incremental reforms as the easing of the ban on his citizens’ travel. Raul Castro has said that he will step down when
his five-year term ends in 2018. But Cuba
remains on Washington’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, and
frustration with Havana’s detention of
American Alan Gross is likely to prevent the kind of wide-scale redefinition of policy some thought
would come during Mr. Obama’s presidency. Washington wants the release of Mr. Gross, a subcontractor who was
sources close to the Obama administration told The Washington Times that ongoing
arrested in 2009 while working for a U.S. Agency for International Development-funded program. Cuban authorities accused him of
illegally delivering satellite phones to individuals in the nation’s Jewish community and gave him a 15-year prison sentence. His
detention served only to amplify back-channel tensions with Havana. The Castro government has for its part long complained about
U.S. treatment of the “Cuban Five” — a group of Cuban intelligence officers convicted in Miami in 2001 of conspiracy to spy on U.S.
military installations, Cuban exiles and anti-Castro politicians. ‘Modest thaw’ The recent move
toward reestablishing direct mail with the U.S. and the upcoming talks on migration might seem insignificant within the
context of such tensions. “These talks are not a major breakthrough,” said Geoff Thale, a program
director at the Washington Institute on Latin America. “But they are one more signal that there is at least a
modest thaw in the relationship, a new willingness to talk.” But even those modest steps have been criticized by some U.S.
lawmakers, most prominently Cuban-American Republicans who represent districts in Florida heavy with anti-Castro exiles.
US-Cuba relations are tense now
AP 7/18
(Deb Riechmann, writer for the Associated Press, “Disputes as US, Cuba discuss migration
issues,” The Associated Press, 7/18/2013,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10899773)
Migration issues headlined the latest talks between the U.S. and Cuba, but long-standing disputes threaten efforts
to thaw relations between the Cold War enemies. Cuba on Wednesday repeated its opposition to the
United States' so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy in which Cuban refugees reaching U.S. soil are allowed to stay while those
stopped at sea are sent home. Cuba says the policy urges its citizens to try to flee the island. American officials repeated their call for
the immediate release of a USAID worker, Alan Gross, imprisoned in Cuba since Dec. 3, 2009. Gross was working on a democracybuilding program when he was arrested. Washington has said no major improvement in relations can occur until he is released.
The migration talks were announced last month after Havana and Washington ended separate negotiations aimed at
restarting direct mail service, which has been suspended since 1963. Discussions about migration and mail along with the relaxation
of travel and remittance rules for Cuban Americans appeared
to signal a thaw in chilly relations. But two
recent events Cuba's support of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden's bid for asylum and the seizing of a ship
stowed with weapons bound from Cuba to North Korea now pose new setbacks to warming relations. Earlier this
month, Cuban President Raul Castro threw his support behind other leftist Latin American governments willing to give asylum to
Snowden, who has since sought temporary asylum in Russia. Castro did not say whether Cuba would offer him refuge or safe
passage, a key issue since Snowden's simplest route to Latin America might be one of five direct flights that Russian carrier Aeroflot
operates to Havana each week. Then this week, Panamanian authorities seized a ship that had departed Cuba en route to North
Korea with a cargo of missiles and other arms hidden under sacks of sugar. Cuba claimed the military equipment was obsolete
weaponry from the mid-20th century that it was sending to be repaired in North Korea. The incident underscored concerns about
Cuba's relationship with North Korea, which is in a standoff with the U.S. and its allies for continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
Cuba's delegation to the migration talks said the discussion took place in a "climate of respect" and said it was willing to hold more
exchanges in the future. Marie Harf, deputy spokeswoman at the State Department, said the discussion focused on the
implementation of the 1994 and 1995 U.S.-Cuba Migration accords. The talks are intended to monitor adherence to a 16-year-old
agreement under which the U.S. issues 20,000 emigration visas to Cubans each year. Wednesday marked the first time since January
2011 that the periodic talks have been held. "The U.S. delegation highlighted areas of successful cooperation in migration, including
advances in aviation safety and visa processing, while also identifying actions needed to ensure that the goals of the accords are fully
met, especially those having to do with safeguarding the lives of intending immigrants," Harf said. Cuba, however, remains
on
the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. In 2001, five Cuban intelligence agents were
convicted of spying on exile groups, politicians and U.S. military installations in Florida. Four of those
men remain in U.S. prisons. Havana denies any links to terrorism and contends its inclusion on the list is a political vendetta. In
Cuba, the spies are celebrated as heroes.
Relations between the U.S. and Cuba are as bad as ever
AP 6/21
(Christine Armario and Matthew Lee, staff writers for the Associated Press, “CRI In the News:
Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles,” The Associated Press, 6/21/2013,
http://cri.fiu.edu/news/2013/cri-in-the-news-cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-many-obstacles/)
To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them. The
State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into
question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand
democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel. For its part, Cuba
continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo. And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old
Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing communications equipment to the
island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has
indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United States, something Washington has said it
won't consider. Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S.
tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sánchez, said the
Obama administration is too concerned with
upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a
crucial time in its history. "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum
leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious."
Despite reforms, U.S.-Cuban relations remain defined by mistrust
Starr, May 2013 – associate professor of international relations at the University of Southern
California
(Pamela K. Starr, “As Cuba Changes, U.S. Policy does not,” Pacific Council on International
Relations, May 2013, https://www.pacificcouncil.org/document.doc?id=539)
In the midst of all this change in Cuba, the lack of change in the bilateral relationship was all the more
striking. There was little on our trip to suggest that a bilateral relationship defined by the U.S. trade
embargo against Cuba , or “the blockade” as Cubans refer to it, is likely to change in the near future. While this
conclusion is not particularly surprising, the reasons for its continued survival were illuminating. Simply put, it is not all or even
mainly about Miami. It
is instead the consequence of two governments mired in mistrust and motivated
preclude any willingness to take the necessary risks to overcome that
by domestic matters that
mistrust. Why the United States Resists Change On the U.S. side, our conversation with Rep. Joe Garcia reinforced what many
academic analysts of Cuban American public opinion and politics have concluded: that Cuban American attitudes and
Florida politics more broadly are changing. Younger generations of Cuban Americans and later waves of Cuban
migrants , whose departures were motivated more by economic opportunity than politics , have dampened support
among Cuban Americans for a policy of economic isolation toward Cuba. A majority of Cuban Americans favor
policies that allow them to travel to Cuba and send money and goods to relatives on the island without restrictions. Still, the
majority of Cuban Americans continue to support what Cubans on the island identify as evidence of continued U.S. hostility toward
Cuba: the embargo
AT: Alt Causes - General
Plan is a key first step to solving alt causes
Schepers 3/11 – [Emile Schepers, “Groups fight to remove Cuba from ‘terrorism sponsors’
list”, People’s World, 3/11/13, http:/peoplesworld.org/groups-fight-to-remove-cuba-fromterrorism-sponsors-list//CHB]
At the headquarters of the National Press Club in downtown Washington D.C., a consortium of
organizations announced a new push to get Cuba taken off the State Department's "State
Sponsors of Terrorism" list on Thursday last week.¶ The event, in the form of a panel discussion, was sponsored by the
Center for International Policy, the Latin American Working Group (LAWG), and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The MC was Wayne
Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, who was the head of the U.S. Interests Section (instead of embassy) in Havana from 1979 to
1982, having been appointed by Jimmy Carter. Other participants were Congressman James P. McGovern, D-Massachusetts, former ambassador
Anthony Quainton who is now "Diplomat in Residence" at American University, Robert Muse of Muse and Associates, and Adam Isacson of WOLA. ¶
Congressman McGovern, who has followed U.S. Cuba policy closely, just got back from a visit to Cuba with a
bipartisan delegation headed by Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. McGovern participated in a two hour meeting with Cuban President
Raul Castro. He and the other speakers pushed for an overall change in U.S.-Cuba policy, of which
removal of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism would be a useful first step.¶ It would
be of symbolic value, but it would also be a necessary step if current restrictions on trade with
Cuba are going to be lifted, because presence of a country on the State Sponsors of Terrorism
list prohibits certain kinds of trade, aid and financial transactions. To get a country off the list, the
administration would have to certify that it is not supporting terrorism and that it agrees not to do so in the future.
Removal from the terror list overcomes alt causes – key first step
Colvin 2009 – [Jake Colvin, “U.S-Cuba: The Case For Business”, The Center For Democracy In
The Americas, collection of essays published 2009, starting page 51,
http:/www.scribd.com/doc/10323598/9-Ways-for-US-to-Talk-to-Cuba-and-for-Cuba-to-Talk-toUS//CHB]
U.S. policy toward Cuba may be “ridiculous,” as George Shultz told PBS’s Charlie Rose last year, but it is not high enough on
the list of priorities for U.S. policymakers to commit the kind of time and energy required for
full and immediate normalization of ties. But signals are important, and there are a number of
initial steps that could lay the groundwork for future trade relations.¶ First, help Cuba rebuild from the
storms. While the Cuban government seems congenitally opposed to American aid, the President and Congress could help Cuba rebuild by changing the
terms of the U.S. embargo. The United States could exempt agricultural machinery, heavy equipment and construction materials via a simple federal
register notice establishing new exceptions to the Cuba sanctions pro-gram. The United States could also authorize direct U.S. banking services with
Cuba, which are currently prohibited, in order to facilitate these sales. ¶ Second, loosen travel restrictions. Immediate repeal of the restrictions on travel
and people-to-people exchanges would be a welcome step. Complete repeal of travel restrictions would allow U.S. citizens — including American
business executives and entrepreneurs — to get to know the Cuban people and the Cuban market. (Repeal would also take a burden off of the Treasury
and Homeland Security Departments, which could redirect the resources that currently go to administer and enforce prohibitions on travel by American
citizens, to investigating more urgent threats like al-Qaeda and Iran.) Since repeal of the travel ban would likely require an Act of Congress, the
President should enlist the help of key members, including chairs of the relevant committees and House and Senate leadership. The White House
should work with American business organizations and moderate Cuban-American groups to make a strong case for repeal. Dialogue with Congress and
action on the travel ban could pave the way for a broader discussion about the bilateral relationship. Allowing Americans to visit Cuba freely by ending
the travel ban would also be a boon for U.S. businesses. One report, sponsored by the Freedom to Travel campaign, predicted that an end to the travel
ban could increase U.S. economic output by more than $1 billion and could create tens of thousands of new jobs in the U.S. tourism industry. ¶ U.S.
consumer product companies would also benefit from an end to travel restrictions as demand by American tourists in Cuba for familiar products like
toothpaste and soda would increase. And, according to a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission in2007, overall farm sales could increase by
more than $300 million per year if travel and trade restrictions are lifted. ¶ Third, address legislative impediments to normal commercial relations. In
particular, the United States should resolve a longstanding trade dispute with Cuba that targets one of the island’s best known brands, Havana Club
rum. Congress passed a special interest provision in the dead of night in 1998 known as “Section 211” (named after the section of the appropriations
bill to which it was attached). The provision interferes with the renewal of the Havana Club trademark in the United States. It has been found to violate
U.S. trade commitments and exposes the trademarks of hundreds of American businesses to the prospect of discrimination and retaliation by Cuba and
other foreign governments. Section 211 is fundamentally at odds with the interests of the U.S. government and American companies in protecting
intellectual property abroad. It is also a serious stumbling block to a better relationship. While Congress should consider repealing Section 211 in its
entirety, the Obama administration could issue a license that would allow the Havana Club mark to be renewed in the United States, and would
demonstrate the U.S. commitment to intellectual property protection and a new relationship with Cuba. Other important legislative initiatives,
including the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (otherwise known as Helms-Burton), the Cuban Adjustment Act, and the Cuban Democracy
Act will also need to be addressed. In particular, repeal of Helms-Burton could have an important symbolic effect on the relationship with Cuba and U.S.
allies.¶ Fourth, encourage greater U.S. private sector engagement with Cuba. The United States should support the establishment of a regular dialogue
between Cuban economic officials and American businesses. Facilitating sector-specific briefings — even in the face of continued trade restrictions —
would establish important new channels of communication. The United Kingdom provides an excellent model for this type of interaction through a
public-private partnership known as the Cuba Initiative. The Initiative was founded in 1994 at the request of the Cuban and British governments. The
group facilitates meetings between British businesses and Cuban ministers in the United Kingdom, which has in the past led to opportunities for
“chance” meetings with U.K. government officials. The administration should license and facilitate these activities and encourage the American
business community to maintain lines of communication with Cuba. ¶ Fifth, engage the Cuban government through principled diploma-cy. American
diplomats should engage frequently through already established channels to deal with illegal narcotics, migration and military issues. Reinvigorating
dialogue through these regular, low-level channels would set the stage for higher level discussions. Even if breakthroughs are not possible immediately,
re-establishing regular channels of communication will make gradual improvement more likely down the road. Although the Cuban government may be
reluctant to embrace sweeping efforts to change its relationship with the United States, the President should attempt to advance America’s interests
reevaluate Cuba’s inclusion on the State Department’s list of
“State Sponsors of Terrorism.” As with other countries, Cuba’s place on the list may be
negotiated in the context of other issues. (North Korea was taken off the list because of its cooperation on its nuclear
program, not for lessening support for acts of terrorism.) Cuba should be removed from the list, assuming that U.S.
intelligence information supports it, although such a move is likely to happen only in the con-text of improved bilateral relations.
and values through direct diplomacy.¶ Sixth,
AT: Alt Cause - Gross
Cuba has won’t release Gross until they are taken off the terror list
Bolender, 5/1/2013, Guest Scholar at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
(Keith, “Commentary: The terrorist list and terrorism as practiced against Cuba”, Caribbean News Now,
http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-Commentary%3A-The-terrorist-list-and-terrorism-aspracticed-against-Cuba-15655.html)
A 2004 State Department report asserted that “Cuba continued to actively oppose the US-led coalition prosecuting the global war on
terrorism.” [12] This reasoning has long been undermined by Fidel Castro’s condemnation of the 2001 attack, pointing to his own
country’s experiences in his call to bolster efforts to eradicate all forms of terrorism.¶ Currently, an unrelated matter has been used
to justify non-engagement and for Cuba’s retention on the US list of terrorist nations. American
citizen Alan Gross was
jailed three years ago in Cuba for bringing in illegal telecommunication equipment under a
program financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)–a government organization
supportive of regime change on the island. ¶ Obama officials have repeatedly stated no improvement in relations can be achieved
with Gross in jail. Conversely, the
Cuban side indicated there might be an opening in the case if Havana
were taken off the list. Chris Van Hollen, Democrat from Maryland, traveled to Havana recently, returning with expressions
of hope for an improved relationship with Cuba under the condition that, “the first step needs to be resolving Alan Gross’s
situation.” [13]¶ There
is no sound argument for Cuba’s continued description as a state sponsor of
terrorism. Secretary of State Kerry has in his hands a method to end the moral duplicity and possibly help kick start
engagement. Kerry, an outspoken critic of what he has called “the failed Cuban policy,” publicly stated his support for
the end of travel restrictions and the elimination of the funding for the type of programs in
which Gross was involved. [14] He now has the opportunity to put rhetoric into reality, to demonstrate to Cuba and the
rest of Latin America that United States policy regarding their contentious neighbor to the south is moving into a new, more mature
and constructive period.¶ More
importantly, Kerry should recommend removal from the list, because
it is the morally right thing to do. Terrorism is a serious, dangerous blight on modern society -it should not be used for purely political motivations. Both countries have suffered from the scourge, but only
one continues to be punished unjustly by an arbitrary and mendacious designation, which is custom-tailored to serve the political
requirements of the hard-right Cuban-American community in Miami. Cuba’s
inclusion on the list of terrorist
states is an outdated rhetorical invention sustained by a decades’ long antagonism between
two opposing ideologies, which all along has impeded efforts to move towards an
improvement in relations. It is time for Cuba to be taken off the list.
The Alan Gross issue is slowly being resolved
Orsi and Lee, 7/15/2013, Writers for the Associated Press
(Peter and Matthew, “As US-Cuba relations appear to thaw, diplomats find more freedom to move within
each country”, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/as-us-cuba-relationsappear-to-thaw-diplomats-find-more-freedom-to-move-within-each-country/2013/07/15/204a68d8ed78-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html)
Earlier this year, the chief of the Cuban Interests Section delivered the keynote address at a University of Georgia law school
conference on the economic embargo against Cuba. Two other Cuban officials went to Tampa in March to attend an event
promoting engagement between the U.S. and Cuba.¶ “In the past, they have not had much luck,” said Wayne Smith, a former chief
of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and one of the hosts of the Tampa conference, titled, “Rapprochement with Cuba: Good for
Tampa, Good for Florida, Good for America.”¶ “The State Department usually said no,” Smith said. “But in this case, it was, ‘Yes.’ And
I would say a somewhat different tone. A more positive one.Ӧ The travel is part of a larger, slow-moving thaw between the two
countries and comes as both prepare for a sit-down talk on migration issues on Wednesday. Cuba and the U.S. held talks last month
on resuming direct mail service.
A U.S. federal judge allowed a Cuban intelligence agent to return to
the island in May. And Cuba recently decided to let an American doctor examine jailed U.S.
government subcontractor Alan Gross.¶ Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North
American Studies at American University, described the moves as “cautious steps.”
AT: Alt Cause – Wpns/Boat
The weapons were irrelevant and the incident won’t impact relations
Cuba says the weapons, which were en route to North Korea for repairs, are "obsolete." And experts who
identified early Cold War relics like the Soviet-designed SA-2 air defense system among the ship's cargo say that's not far
from the truth.¶ "We are talking about really old stuff -- that technology was designed in the
1940s and 50s," said James O'Halloran, editor of Jane's Land Based Air Defence and Jane's Strategic Weapon
Systems. "Very few countries still employ the SA-2 system as a frontline defensive weapon."¶ The SA-2, which consists of a single
radar-guided missile mounted on a launcher, was developed years before the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1960 and was used by the Viet
Cong during the Vietnam War, long before the advent of heat-seeking or satellite-guided missiles. Men sitting in radar trucks on the
ground had to guide the rockets toward their targets.¶ O'Halloran says the tactic, if you were an American pilot in Vietnam, was to
"watch this damn great thing coming toward you and at the last minute pull a heavy right or left, and the missile couldn't follow you,
it just kept going."¶ "Today there is no reason for any Western pilot to be hit by an SA-2 -- if you get caught by one of them, you've
done something bloody stupid, or you've got very bad luck. No modern country wants to be seen with those."¶
But North Korea and Cuba, isolated communist allies and trading partners since the Cold War, aren't modern countries, to say the
least -- and after years of sanctions and embargoes there are few places (and even less cash) at their disposal to obtain new
weapons, according to experts.¶ U.N.:
North Korea continues banned weapons trade¶ "If you buy a new
weapons system, you also have to buy the hardware and the training, which can take a year or more if
you buy some of the more modern air defense systems that the Russians sell," said Mike Elleman, Senior Fellow for Regional
Security Cooperation at IISS. "And the Cubans don't have the money."¶ Even if Cuba had the
money, countries like Russia would be reluctant to sell the Castro regime advanced weapons
systems for fear of infuriating the Americans. And even if Cuba obtained newer weapons, Elleman says
the U.S. would still overwhelm them in short order.¶ What's left for countries like Cuba is to seek repairs on
systems like the SA-2, which went out of commission decades ago, and the MiG-21 jet, which was last produced in 1985 and is now
mostly kept by long-time Russian allies for spare parts, according to O'Halloran at Jane's.¶ As Panamanian authorities continue to
search the Chong Chon Gang -- a freighter with its own checkered past -- they are asking the U.S. and United Kingdom
to send teams to help them identify the weapons, and will invite a special commission from the United Nations to determine
whether the shipment violates the organization's North Korea weapons ban.¶ In the meantime,
experts don't expect the
episode will have a lasting effect diplomatically on either country -- North Korea is already
"sanctioned to the hilt," says Ellemann, and Cuba's relations with the U.S. are thawing after decades
of tension.¶ "There are a good number of people who believe that the sanctions against Cuba
are very outdated and that it's just a matter of time before they're lifted, and I don't see this
changing that," Ellemann told CNN.¶ The more lasting impression of the raid on ship could, in the end, be the 10,000 tons of
brown sugar found on-board the ship. The crew attempted to sabotage the Chong Chon Gang by cutting the cables on its cargo
cranes, meaning Panamanian authorities have had to remove the 255,000 bags of sugar by hand.¶ Experts believe the sugar could be
Cuban payment to cash-strapped North Korea in exchange for the weapons repairs.¶ "This will be much ado about nothing, except
telling the world just how bad a shape Cuba and North Korea are in today -- bartering early Cold War materials for sugar, that speaks
volumes," said Ellemann.
I/L – Laundry List
Relations key to solving terror, drug trade, and disasters
Brenner and Stephens, 2012, Professor of International Relations at American
University and executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas
(Phillip and Sarah, 5/22/2012, “Improved Relations with Cuba would Benefit the US”, Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76626_Page2.html
Against this backdrop of a more measured visa policy, LASA decided to return to the U.S. Obama administration officials reportedly
promised that they would issue visas to genuine Cuban scholars who were invited.¶ They have indeed granted 63 visas to the 85
Cubans who applied this year. The administration even gave a visa to Mariela Castro Espin, a champion of gay rights and a leader in
Cuba’s successful program to fight HIV-AIDS. She also happens to be President Raúl Castro’s daughter — which brought her
participation at the LASA meeting to the attention of hard-line Cuban-Americans in Congress.¶ Some State Department officials have
sought appreciation from Latin American scholars for issuing the 63 visas, including one for Castro’s daughter. Their decisions here
lack consistency, transparency and logic.¶ U.S. interests should not be held hostage to the narrow objectives of extremists in both
countries. Improved
relations with Cuba would benefit the U.S. by enabling us to work together
on problems of drug interdiction, terrorism, natural disaster preparation and human disaster
prevention, like oil spills. It would make family reunification easier and normalize cultural
exchange.¶ It could also help Washington improve relations with its major Latin American
allies and trading partners, several of which announced last month that they would not attend any
future summit of the Americas unless Cuba participated.¶ It looks like our policy of coddling extremists on the
Cuba issue has backfired. We may ultimately be the ones who are isolated.¶ But it is still not too late for Obama to change his mind.
The best, most powerful signal he could send about the principles of free travel and expression would be to open the door to all the
Cuban scholars who seek to come to America and speak their minds.
I/L – Latin America Relations
Increasing relations with Cuba from terror list removal key to US relations with
the rest of Latin America
Ekantipur 05/31/13 (“Cuba says inclusion on U.S. terrorist list 'shameful”,
http://www.ekantipur.com/2013/05/31/headlines/Cuba-says-inclusion-on-U.S.-terrorist-listshameful/372537/)//Modermatt
HAVANA , MAY 31 - In what has become an annual ritual, the United States on Thursday kept Cuba on its list of "state sponsors of
terrorism" and Havana reacted angrily, calling it a "shameful decision" based in politics, not reality. Cuba
said in a statement that the U.S. government was pandering to the Cuban exile community in Miami against its own interests and
the wishes of the American people. "It
hopes to please an anti-Cuban group, growing smaller all the
time, which tries to maintain a policy that now has no support and doesn't even represent the
national interests of the United States," said the statement issued by Cuba's foreign ministry. Iran, Sudan and Syria
also are on the list, which is published annually by the U.S. State Department. Cuba has been on it since 1982. The terrorism
designation comes with a number of sanctions, including a prohibition on U.S. economic assistance and financial restrictions that
create problems for Cuba in international commerce, already made difficult by a U.S. trade embargo imposed against the island
since 1962. The State Department's explanation for Cuba's inclusion on the list discounted most of the reasons from previous years
and said "there was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups." In the
past, the report fingered Cuba for harboring rebels from the Marxist-led FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and
members of Basque separatist groups. This year,
it noted that Cuba is sponsoring peace talks between
the FARC and the Colombian government and has moved to distance itself from the Basques.
Washington's primary accusation was that Cuba harbors and provides aid to fugitives from
U.S. justice. Cuba does not deny that it has fugitives from the United States, but said none had been accused of terrorism.
Robert Muse, a Washington attorney who specializes in Cuba issues, said there is no legal basis for designating Cuba as a terrorist
sponsor because of the presence of the fugitives. He said they remain on the island because the Washington has refused to honor a
longstanding extradition treaty with Cuba. Earlier this month, the FBI placed one of the fugitives, Joanne Chesimard, on its most
wanted terrorist list 40 years after she was convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper. Chesimard, a former member of a black
militant group, has been in Cuba since 1984. Cuba rejected the notion that she or anyone else on the island was involved in terrorist
activities. "The territory of Cuba has never been used and never will be to harbor terrorists of any origin, nor to organize, finance or
perpetrate acts of terrorism against any country in the world, including the United States," it said. Geoff Thale, program
director at the Washington Office on Latin America think tank, said President Barack Obama
can take Cuba off the terrorist list at any time and should do so because it is "clear that the
State Department doesn't really believe that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism." Removing
Cuba from the list would improve relations with Cuba and all of Latin America, which sees U.S.
policy toward Cuba "as a reflection of U.S. attitudes toward the region as a whole," Thale said.
! – Cuban Democratization
Good relations key foster peaceful regime change
Metzker, 6/13/13, Reporter for Inter Press Service
(Jason, “Pressure Building for U.S. to Remove Cuba from ‘Terror Sponsor’ List”, Inter Press Service,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/pressure-building-for-u-s-to-remove-cuba-from-terror-sponsor-list/)
Experts here are stepping up calls for the U.S. government to remove Cuba from an official list of “state sponsors of terrorism”,
arguing that the country’s presence on
the list is anachronistic and makes neither legal nor political
sense.¶ The calls come just weeks after the U.S. State Department, which oversees the “state sponsors” list, released an annual
report on terrorism. Its section regarding Cuba varied only slightly from that of the previous year, disappointing those who had
hoped for a step in the direction of normalisation of U.S.-Cuba relations.¶ “At
a time when the U.S. is best
positioned to help facilitate change in the island and to take advantage of the changes inside
the country, this continued inclusion is actually an obstacle to taking advantage of that
window of opportunity,” Tomas Bilbao, executive director of the Cuba Study Group, said Tuesday at a panel discussion at
the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank here. ¶ Bilbao noted the continued influence of a “shrinking
minority” of anti-Cuba hardliners in the United States who fervently oppose Cuba’s removal from the list, as well as a lack of political
will on the part of U.S. policymakers to square off with that minority.¶ Nonetheless, he asserted that the
time is ripe for the
United States to take Cuba off the list and prioritize helping the Cuban people over harming
the Cuban regime.¶ President Barack Obama’s administration has overseen some notable policy shifts, such as a relaxation of
laws restricting travel by U.S. citizens with family in Cuba. Certain realities have also been changing within Cuba, including the
abdication of Fidel Castro from power, which make friendlier policies toward the island nation more feasible.¶ Sarah Stephens,
executive director of the Centre for Democracy in the Americas, a U.S. organisation that promotes reconciliation with Cuba, told IPS
that delisting
Cuba now would “enable the U.S. to support Cuba’s drive to update its economic
model, make it easier to facilitate trade and easier for Cuba to access high technology items ”.¶
“Doing so,” she said, “would in turn help Cubans lead more prosperous and independent lives.”¶
Debating Cuba’s qualifications¶ Cuba has been on the State Department list since 1982, but some analysts maintain that the country
did not fit the definition of a state sponsor of terror even then. In order to fit that legal definition, a country must have “repeatedly
provided support for international terrorism”.¶ According to Robert L. Muse, a specialist on the legality of U.S. policy toward Cuba,
there are currently three ostensible reasons for Cuba’s inclusion in the most recent list: that it has allowed Basque separatists to
reside within its borders, that it has dealings with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and that it harbours fugitives
wanted for crimes committed in the United States.¶ Muse, who spoke Tuesday at CSIS, claimed the first two reasons were void
because the countries concerned actually condone Cuba’s relationship with their adversaries. Cuba is currently host to negotiations
between FARC and the Colombian government, and Spanish leaders prefer that Basque rebels remain in Cuba – and out of Spain.¶
These interactions with rebel groups, in Muse’s opinion, “can hardly be a basis even for criticism”. It is only the third justification,
that Cuba harbours U.S. fugitives, which he said “could fairly bear description as a reason” for keeping Cuba on the list.¶ Cuba has
harboured a number of fugitives seeking refuge from the U.S. justice system. The most prominent is Assata Shakur, an AfricanAmerican poet and participant in 1970s black liberation movements who was allegedly involved in the killing of a police officer. She
was convicted for the murder but escaped and in 1984 gained political asylum in Cuba, where she has remained ever since.¶ Early
last month, Shakur became the first woman to be added to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted Terrorist list.
But Muse notes that this designation was “arbitrary and capricious”, as neither she nor any other fugitive residing in Cuba has been
accused, let alone convicted, of international terrorism.¶
Latin American democracy key to global democracy
Hillman, 2 – Ph.D., Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Democracy and Human
Rights, St. John Fisher College (Richard S., Democracy and Human Rights in Latin Americai,
Preface, p. vii) //SP
Latin American experiences, especially in the areas of democratization and human rights
protection, are particularly relevant for developing countries that are attempting to build
stable political and economic systems in order to provide a decent standard of living and
incorporate previously excluded populations into the national mainstream. The past record, of
course, is far from acceptable. The advent of the twenty-first century, however, appears to be
a time of great potential progress for the institutionalization of democratic human rights
regimes that would reduce human pain and suffering. The number of countries in Latin
America and elsewhere that are experimenting with democracy has never been greater.
Clearly, the path toward fulfilling the expectations raised by these experiments is not an easy
one; it is fraught with difficult obstacles deriving from the historical legacy as well as
contemporary challenges. Nevertheless, democracy and human rights have definitively entered
the political lexicon and discourse throughout the world.
Democracy prevents extinction
Diamond 1995 - Hoover Institute Senior Fellow (Larry, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,”
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/fr.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs
intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with
authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global
ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to
security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The experience of this century offers
important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to
war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or
glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations,
and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism
against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten
one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships.
In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more
environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to
protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international
treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more
difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they
respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only
reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be
built.
! - Climate
Relations spur effective global cooperation in preventing the dissemination of
nuclear weapons to terrorists and preventing climate change
Inter-American Dialogue 12 (“Remaking the Relationship The United States and Latin America”,
the Inter-American Dialogue is the leading US center for policy analysis, exchange, and
communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs, April 2012,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
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
include:
 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.
Warming is an existential risk – quickening reductions is key to avoiding
extinction
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and
Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate
Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the
scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections,
which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at
constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C
(O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
Without early and severe reductions in
emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are
likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the
associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and
advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure
and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist,
many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an
existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human
experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
Action now averts extinction
Morgan 9 – professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (Dennis Ray, “World on Fire:
Two Scenarios of the Destruction of Human Civilization and the Possible Extinction of the
Human Race”, 2009)//Beddow
As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire
may seem, the one consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short
period of time if responsible world leaders change Cold War thinking to move away
from aggressive wars over natural resources and towards the eventual dismantlement of
most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another scenario of human
extinction by fire is one that may not so easily be reversed within a short period of time
because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating up the planet as industrial
civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed,
even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about ‘‘progress’’ and industrial development based on the burning of
fossil fuels. The way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the
proverbial frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to
escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is
debilitated. Though it finally realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail— and
the frog dies. Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as a comparable
scenario of how the
slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway
condition and take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians
finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human
caused, its development could be too advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and
enfeebled to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the
WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme to ‘‘assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the
scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.’’[16].
Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior
assessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that
the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless, as more and more research
continually
provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis,
that it is indeed human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific
consensus grew stronger that human induced global warming is verifiable. As a matter of fact,
according to Bill McKibben [17], 12 years of ‘‘impressive scientific research’’ strongly confirms the 1995 report ‘‘that humans
had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they were now damaging the most basic of the earth’s
systems—the balance between incoming and outgoing solar energy’’; ‘‘. . . their findings have essentially been complementary to
the 1995 report – a constant strengthening of the simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel.’’ [17]. Indeed,
12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with a stronger scientific consensus that the slow burn is ‘‘very
‘‘amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now
increasing at a faster rate even than before’’ and the temperature increases would be
‘‘considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that
is temporarily helping to cool the planet.’’ [17]. Furthermore, almost ‘‘everything frozen on earth is melting.
likely’’ human caused, but it also finds that the
Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air, and ‘cold days,
cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.’’ [17].
Unless drastic action is taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted to rise
about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been
evidenced in recent years, the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic sheets.
This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be
much greater than what has been previously forecasted. However, what is missing in the IPCC report,
as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have
the most devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report
places too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which
leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature.
! – Summit of the Americas
Without removing Cuba from the terror list, the Summit of Americas will be
destroyed
Strain ‘13
[George Strain – professor at Baton Rouge, “Take Cuba off terror list”, April 27 2013,
http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/5748256-123/letter-take-cuba-off-terror]
Most Americans wouldn’t be able to determine what Cuba, Iran, Syria and Sudan have in common.¶ They are, in fact, the four
countries that are on the State Department’s list of “state sponsors of terrorism.” Not
only does this designation of
Cuba on the terrorist list affect our overall relationship with our island neighbor, it also affects
our relationship with the Western Hemisphere, and the rest of the world, who do not see Cuba as a
terrorist threat.¶ At the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, that took place on April 14-15, the rest of
the Americas made it quite clear that without a change in our relationship with Cuba,
another summit would not happen. If we are truly sincere about improving our relationship
with Cuba, as President Barack Obama has maintained, the right place to start would be re-examining the
designation of Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.¶ Cuba has been on this list since March 1,
1982. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Services report, at the time of Cuba’s addition to the list “numerous U.S.
government reports and statements under the Reagan Administration alleged Cuba’s ties to international terrorism and its support
for terrorist groups in Latin America.Ӧ Any
rationale for keeping Cuba on this list has long-since
disappeared, especially with Cuba now playing a principal role in facilitating and hosting the Colombia-FARC peace negotiations
being held in Havana. If you take a look at the State Department’s website, the few paragraphs that detail Cuba’s designation on the
list actually read more like reasons to take Cuba off.¶ By keeping Cuba on this list we are weakening the credibility of the entire list.
In the past, other countries have been removed from the terrorist list. Why can’t we remove Cuba? Cuba has ratified all 12
international counterterrorism conventions, and even offered to sign a bilateral agreement with the United States on
counterterrorism. Cuba also collaborates with the United States in counter-drug efforts in the Caribbean, and this cooperation is one
that the U.S. government acknowledges and praises.¶ Iraq was removed from the list in 1982 and again in 2004 (after having been
reassigned to the list). Libya was removed in 2006. Even North Korea was removed in 2008 (well, that may have been a mistake).¶
The presence of Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism symbolizes everything that’s
wrong with our approach to Cuba. It’s based on a myth (that Cuba sponsors terrorist groups) It reinforces Cold War-era
prejudices (that Cuba is an “enemy” who we must isolate and oppose). It helps lock our foreign policy in stone. It prevents the
United States from taking sensible steps toward normalizing relations with Cuba.
The summit is key to the global economy
Inter-American Development Bank ‘12
[Inter-American Development Bank, “First CEO Summit of the Americas calls for greater economic cooperation among Western
Hemisphere nations”, Apr 14 2012, http://www.iadb.org/en/news/news-releases/2012-04-14/ceo-summit-of-theamericas,9952.html]
CARTAGENA, Colombia – The First CEO Summit
of the Americas wrapped up today with calls for greater
cooperation among Western Hemisphere nations on matters ranging from trade and investment to
education, science and technology and security, in order to boost prosperity from Canada to Chile.¶ At the end of the conference,
held ahead of the 6th Summit of the Americas, Presidents Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Barack
Obama of the United States participated in a roundtable discussion in front of an audience that included more than 700 top
executives from many of the Western Hemisphere’s leading companies.¶ After praising the economic and social progress achieved
by countries such as Brazil and Colombia over the past decade, Obama said there were many fields where countries in this
hemisphere could collaborate fruitfully. “We’ve never felt more excited about prospects of working as equal partners with our
brothers and sisters in Latin America and the Caribbean,” he added.¶ Rousseff, whose nation recently overtook the United Kingdom
as the world’s sixth biggest economy, also spoke in favor of closer cooperation, but stressed that alliances should be based on
equality among allies. She called for greater integration of supply chains among countries in the Americas, most of which have to
catch up to Asian and Eastern European countries that are well connected with global production systems. “We need to view this
region as an area where you cannot have protectionism,” Rousseff added.¶ Santos, who called for closer coordination of economic
policies to avoid the “export of crises,” proposed that the
countries of the Americas should arrive with a common
position to the G20 meeting due to be held in Mexico in June to discuss possible joint actions to head off another
global recession.¶ The three heads of state also agreed on the importance of improving education and job training in their
countries in order to improve people’s employment prospects. “If we were to ask our people what is their greatest concern, I am
sure that the answer would be jobs,” Santos added.¶ Science and technology research and development was also seen as a fertile
ground for collaboration in the Americas. Obama noted Brazil’s leadership in biofuels, adding that both countries should intensify
their cooperation on developing clean energies.¶ The conversation among the American, Brazilian and Colombian presidents capped
the two-day event organized by Colombia’s private sector with the endorsement of the Colombian government and technical
support from the Inter-American Development Bank. During the CEO summit
participants discussed
opportunities to speed up economic growth and reduce poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean
through public-private partnerships and deeper regional integration.¶ In his opening speech on Friday, Santos called on the private
sector to contribute to inclusive economic growth. “Without business people prosperity will not come to the peoples of this
continent,” Santos said. “But business also has a tremendous responsibility. You must do everything possible to improve social
conditions. Fighting poverty is a great business proposition for everyone.Ӧ In his presentation for the CEO summit, IDB President
Luis Alberto Moreno said that the Americas could double the value of their commerce within a decade if governments and the
private sector undertake key investments. “This would have a tremendous impact on job creation,” Moreno said, “especially for the
millions of young people who enter the job force each year.”’¶ Moreno called on companies and governments to ensure that
benefits of digital connectivity not only benefit wealthy consumers in large cities, but that they also push out into isolated rural areas
and down into the base of the income pyramid. “We need to bet on the future, and take infrastructure, products and services not
only to the growing urban middle class, but also to isolated populations, to families that aspire to greater social mobility,” Moreno
said.¶ Moreno announced two new IDB initiatives that seek to leverage greater connectivity among public and private sectors to
help solve two important development challenges: youth unemployment and access to finance.¶ The IDB and the Multilateral
Investment Fund (MIF) are teaming up with the International Youth Foundation and the region’s biggest employers, including
Walmart and McDonald’s operator Arcos Dorados, to launch an alliance to train as many as 1 million youth for their first jobs over
the next decade. They also announced the provision of up to $55 million in financing for institutions to develop new lending models
to improve access to credit for women entrepreneurs in the region.¶ Throughout the CEO summit heads of state and distinguished
cultural, diplomatic and business figures shared their vision for accelerating connectivity and development across the hemisphere.¶
The president of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, urged Latin American countries to advance free trade
agreements, eliminate trade barriers and embrace open markets. “Trade is one of the key factors for
progress,” he said, “and humanity has known for a thousand years that trade generates benefits for all.”¶ Colombian singer Shakira
exhorted the business community to deepen its commitment to corporate social responsibility. “It would be fantastic to see the
business leaders of Latin America embrace philanthropic capitalism in the way that executives in other countries have, for example
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who asks multimillionaires to promise that they will pledge half of their fortunes to help the poor,” she
said.¶ Shakira, who started her own educational foundation as a teenager, added that she is waiting to see a Latin American version
of philanthropic capitalism, and that she would like to see business people in the region “encourage each other and compete to see
who writes the biggest checks.”¶ On the eve of the CEO summit, the IDB and Shakira’s ALAS Foundation presented their joint awards
for excellence in early childhood development. During the ceremony, the artist invited Moreno and leading business people to join a
“movement for early childhood” to promote programs to serve children from birth to the time they enter school, prioritizing
investments for the 35 million children in the region who currently lack access to adequate nutrition, health care and education
services.
Growth solves conflict
Marquardt, 5 (Michael J., Professor of Human Resource Development and International Affairs, George Washington
University, Globalization: The Pathway to Prosperity, Freedom and Peace,” Human Resource Development International, March
2005, Volume 8, Number 1, pg. 127-129, Taylor and Francis, Tashma)
Perhaps the
greatest value of globalization is its potential for creating a world of peace . Economic growth
has been identified as one of the strongest forces that turn people away from conflict and wars
among groups, tribes, and nations. Global companies strongly discourage governments from warring against countries in
which they have investments. Focusing on economic growth encourages cooperation and living in
relative peace (Marquardt, 2001, 2002).
Studies show economic growth lessens that chance for conflicts
Hupreys 03 (Macartan Huphreys is a Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Columbia
University And Director, Center for the Study of Development Strategies Feb 2003 “Economics and Violent
Conflict”
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/Peace_and_Business/Economics_and_Violent_Conflic
t.pdf) //CG
One might expect rich nations to be more violent than poor ones because the rich ones have more to fight over. 10 The econometric
evidence however suggests the opposite. Most
research shows that wealth reduces the likelihood of civil
war, 11 and that economic growth also reduces risks while recessions worsen them. Figures
derived from World Bank econometric models (Figure 1) show a striking relationship between
the wealth of a nation and its chances of having a civil war. 12 The figure suggests that differences in wealth
are most relevant among poorer countries. A country with GDP per person of just $250 has a predicted probability of war onset (at
some point over the next five years) of 15%, even if it is otherwise considered an “average” country. This
probability of war
reduces by half for a country with GDP of just $600 per person and is reduced by half again to
below 4% for a country with income of $1250. Countries with income per person over $5000
have a less than 1% chance of experiencing civil conflicts, all else being equal. There are various
explanations for why this is so. But so far little work has been undertaken to distinguish between them. The most common is that
wealthier societies are better able to protect assets, thus making violence less attractive for
would-be rebels. 13 Another explanation, given by political scientist Thomas Homer Dixon argues that poverty causes
violence, and points to cases where scarcity leads to migrations that result in conflicts
between identity groups over resources. Alternatively, the relationship could be spurious in the sense that there are
other features of a country, such as a democratic culture, that make it at once more prosperous and less violent. And causality may
in fact run in the opposite direction: rich countries may be rich in part because they have had little civil conflict in their recent past.
14 Whatever the reason, the
figures suggest that growth oriented initiatives and conflict prevention
initiatives are mutually reinforcing. And the figures provide a rationale for those who say that it is in the interest of
wealthy nations to promote economic growth in poor countries in order to avoid the spillover effects of likely conflicts there. In
terms of policy implications, the analysis suggests that the greatest gains in conflict prevention are to be made by focusing
development efforts on the very poor rather than on countries of intermediate wealth.
! – Summit Ext.
Cuba off the terror list leads to better US relations with Latin America as a
whole
Thale and Boggs, 2013, Washington’s Office on Latin America’s Program
director and Officer for Cuba
(Geoff and Clay, 3/5/2013, “Cuba and the Terrorist List”, Washington Office on Latin America)
http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_and_the_terrorist_list
On February 21, the Boston Globe reported that senior State Department officials were considering removing Cuba from the list of
State Sponsors of Terrorism. Advocates of engagement with Cuba welcomed this news, as de-listing
Cuba would be a
constructive step toward improving U.S.-Cuba relations. But the State Department responded quickly, stating
that that the Department had “no current plans” to remove Cuba from the list. Whatever the actual state of discussions inside the
administration, this is an opportune moment to reconsider Cuba’s inclusion on the terrorist list and to look again at the broader
state of U.S.-Cuba relations.¶ In 1982, Cuba was added to the terrorist list on the grounds that the Cuban government supported
armed revolution in the Americas. Although many who advocate for keeping Cuba on the terrorist list today admit that the original
justification no longer makes sense, they allege that Cuba harbors Basque ETA members, Colombian FARC and ELN members, and
U.S. fugitives from justice. That position is increasingly difficult to defend. In the past year, Cuba has played a constructive role in the
peace talks between Colombia and the FARC that are being held in Havana. The United States has a strategic interest in the success
of these talks, and the State Department has stated that it is "supportive" of the peace process. Cuba’s
inclusion on the
terrorist list at a time in which it is instrumental in brokering peace negotiations for one of the
United States' closest allies makes U.S. foreign policy appear contradictory, if not incoherent.¶
More broadly, the U.S. approach toward Cuba, which is exemplified by Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism, hurts the U.S. image in Latin America. In recent years, Latin American leaders have
publicly questioned U.S. policy toward Cuba. At the most recent Summit of the Americas in
Cartagena, Colombia, Latin American presidents across the political spectrum challenged President
Obama on a number of issues, including Cuba’s participation in the Summit of the Americas and drug policy. It is also
striking that Cuba is the pro tempore president of CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños), the new regional
forum that includes all of the countries of the hemisphere, except Canada and the United States. The changed geopolitical
landscape—and the symbolic importance that U.S. policy toward Cuba continues to hold for the Latin American public and elite
opinion—makes it clear that policy
change toward Cuba would improve the U.S. image in the
hemisphere.¶ Recent changes in Cuba itself strengthen the case for taking steps to improve this relationship. The United States
has long conditioned changes in U.S. policy on changes in Cuba's political and economic system (WOLA has consistently argued that
U.S. policy should change independently of changes in Cuba). But since 2011, we have seen a series of gradual but significant
changes in Cuba's economic system, including the expansion of self-employment, the reduction in state payrolls, and liberalization in
the agricultural system. Even as these economic changes took place, many doubted that Cuba would consider any changes in its
political system. But in the past year Cuba has enacted long-awaited migration reforms, and Cuban President Raúl Castro has
announced that he will retire in 2018, effectively putting an end date on the Castro era.
Barring Cuba from the summit kills soft power
Bajak ‘12
[Frank Bajak and Vivian Sequera, “Summit Of The Americas: Cuba Absence Causes Tension Between US And Latin America Leaders”,
Huff post, 4/15/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/summit-of-the-americas-2012-cuba_n_1427115.html]
CARTAGENA, Colombia — Though physically absent, Cuba
cast a big shadow over this Caribbean port at a summit of
30 Western Hemisphere leaders that ended Sunday.¶ Leftist Latin American leaders repeatedly
harangued the United States for continuing to insist that the communist-run nation be barred
from the 18-year-old Summit of the Americas circuit.¶ Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua were unequivocal: They
won't come to the next summit, set for Panama in 2015, if Cuba can't come, too.¶ Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, boycotted this
summit over the issue.¶ "There is no declaration because there is no consensus," Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos
announced at the closing news conference. He said he hoped that Cuba will attend the next one.¶ The United States and Canada
were alone in opposing Cuban participation, and they also refused to endorse in a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the
British-held Falkland Islands.¶ President Evo Morales of Bolivia said the
United States was acting "like a
dictatorship."
US opposition to Cuba joining the summit kills US influence in the region
Marcarian ‘12
[Enrique Marcarian, “Cuba issue deals blow to US stature at 'Summit of the Americas'”, MSNBC, April 15 2012,
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/15/11212586-cuba-issue-deals-blow-to-us-stature-at-summit-of-theamericas?lite]
CARTAGENA, Colombia -- Unprecedented Latin American opposition
to U.S. sanctions on communist Cuba left President
isolated at the Summit of the Americas on Sunday and illustrated Washington's
waning influence in the region.¶ In contrast to the rock-star status he enjoyed at the 2009 summit in Trinidad and
Barack Obama
Tobago shortly after taking office, Obama has had a bruising time at the two-day meeting in Colombia of some 30 heads of state
from across the Americas. ¶ Eleven Secret Service agents and five military personnel were caught in an embarrassing prostitution
scandal, Brazil and others have bashed Obama over U.S. monetary policy, and he has been on the defensive over calls to legalize
drugs.¶ Thanks to the U.S. and Canadian line on Cuba, the heads of state were unable to produce a final declaration as the summit
fizzled out on Sunday.¶ "There was no declaration because there was no consensus," said Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos,
who hosted the summit.¶ "That is not a failure, on the contrary," he said, trying to spin the outcome and frank exchange of different
views as a sign of strength.¶ At a press conference with Santos, Obama responded to a question about Cuba by saying that while his
administration has eased travel by Cuban Americans to Cuba, the Cuban government had not taken steps toward democracy and
"has not yet observed basic human rights."¶ The prostitution saga, above all, was a major blow to the prestige of Obama's Secret
Service bodyguards and turned into the unexpected talk of the town in the historic city of Cartagena.¶ For the first time,
conservative U.S-allied nations like Colombia are throwing their weight behind the traditional demand of leftist governments that
Cuba be in the next meeting of the Organization of American States.¶ "The isolation, the embargo, the indifference, looking the
other way, have been ineffective," Santos said.¶ A major U.S. ally in the region who has relied on Washington for financial and
military help to fight guerrillas and drug traffickers, Santos has become vocal over Cuba despite his strong ideological differences
with Havana.¶ In an ironic twist, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went dancing after midnight on Sunday at a Cartagena bar called
"Cafe Havana" where Cuban music is played.¶ Havana was kicked out of the OAS a few years after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, and
has been excluded from its summits due to opposition from the United States and Canada. Latin Americans also oppose
Washington's trade embargo on the island.¶ Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, who has insisted Washington recognize its
claim to the Falkland Islands controlled by Britain, left the summit on Sunday morning, before its official closure. ¶ Ecuador's
President Rafael Correa boycotted the meeting over Cuba, and fellow leftist Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua also stayed at home. The
leftist ALBA bloc of nations - including Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and some Caribbean nations - said they will not attend
future summits without Cuba's presence.¶ "It's not a favor anyone would be doing to Cuba. It's a right they've had taken away from
them," Ortega said from Managua. "At
President Obama's advisers, to
this meeting in Cartagena, I think it's time for the U.S. government, all
listen to all the Latin American nations."
Preventing Cuba from attending the Summit kills US soft power in Latin
America
LA times ‘12
[“Time to include Cuba”, April 17 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/17/opinion/la-ed-cuba-summit-20120417]
Once again, Cuba was absent from the Summit of the Americas. Yet the communist nation might
as well have attended
the gathering last weekend in Cartagena, Colombia, because it took center stage, despite U.S. efforts
to focus on other issues.¶ Ecuador's president refused to attend the summit in protest of Cuba's exclusion. Colombian
President Juan Manuel Santos and Brazil's Dilma Rouseff, both moderates rather than left-wingers, said there should be no more
Summits of the Americas without Cuba. A leftist bloc
of nations that includes Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and some
Caribbean countries said it won't participate again unless Cuba does. And the meeting ended without a final joint
declaration because the United States and Canada refused to agree to language specifying that Cuba would be invited to future
summits.¶ The controversy
should serve as a wake-up call to the United States: The policy of banning
Cuba from the gathering of the hemisphere's leaders for nearly 18 years is backfiring . It hasn't led
to regime change any more than the 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba has; it hasn't persuaded President Raul Castro or,
before him, his brother Fidel to embrace democratic reforms, hold free elections or abandon human rights abuses. Instead, it
has
fueled frustration among Latin leaders. Today, the United States is the only country in the hemisphere that has not
restored diplomatic relations with Havana. Even the Organization of American States, sometimes called an instrument of U.S. foreign
policy, cleared the way for Cuba to return to the group in 2009.¶ The
United States should abandon its push to
keep Cuba from attending the Americas summit. Engagement, not isolation, is the best way to encourage change
without alienating allies.
The sixth Summit of the Americas on April 14-15 is part of an intense spring of bilateral and
regional interactions in the hemisphere. It will bring together thirty-three heads of state from
nearly every member of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Cartegena, Colombia, to
discuss regional issues ranging from expanding economic ties to turning back a surge in criminal
activity.
The Summit is key to trade and economic growth globally
O'Neil ‘12
[Shannon O'Neil, “Why the Summit of the Americas Matters”, April 13 2012, http://shannononeil.com/blog/why-the-summit-of-theamericas-matters/]
For the United States, this summit poses two main challenges. The first, largely overcome, is Cuba. In recent weeks, tensions have
been high over Cuba’s exclusion from the OAS and its events. The Obama administration has repeated longstanding U.S. arguments
that Cuba does not meet the OAS requirements of being a democratic nation. Most Latin American countries tend to see this
ongoing exclusion (as well as U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba in general) as counterproductive.¶ Through deft diplomacy, Colombia’s
President Juan Manuel Santos found a solution–Raul Castro would stay home, but Cuba’s future participation would be discussed. In
the end, only Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa made good on the threat of the ALBA bloc (comprising Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Bolivia, and several island nations) to not attend without Cuba.¶ The second challenge is to make actual progress on the
agenda. The discussions will range from strengthening institutions for disaster preparedness to poverty and inequality reduction,
regional infrastructure projects, and access to technology. One topic likely to dominate the meeting is security, and in particular the
issue of drug legalization.¶ A number of Latin American presidents past and present have supported the idea. Washington has said it
is willing to listen to the discussion, though the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Dan
Restrepo, confirmed that “the Obama administration has been quite clear in [its] opposition to the decriminalization or legalization
of illicit drugs.”¶ Agreement on any of the region’s crowded list of complicated issues will be difficult. It may be harder still this year
due to presidential elections in the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic. As a result, there is little the
United States can promise politically.¶ It would be better for OAS states to focus on economic and energy issues,
which will be propelled not just by governments but also by the private sector. A parallel CEO summit in Colombia, with more than
500 corporate leaders due to attend, could provide a further prompt for deal-making. Whatever the takeaways, the
summit
will provide, as it has in the past, a useful forum for heads of state and their staffs to come together and focus
on issues of regional importance, and an opportunity for the United States to engage leaders
in the region.¶ Hemispheric Power Diplomacy¶ The wave of recent U.S. diplomacy highlights the primacy of bilateral
engagement with Latin America’s two largest countries: Mexico and Brazil. In March, Vice President Joseph Biden visited Mexico’s
capital, meeting with President Felipe Calderón as well as the three leading presidential candidates. On April 2, President Obama
hosted Calderón, along with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in Washington for the North American Leaders summit.
Economic and security issues dominated the bilateral and trilateral discussions as the three nations worked to deepen the benefits
of NAFTA, now nearing its twentieth anniversary.¶ The diplomacy with Brazil has been even more energetic. In late March, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey met in Brazil with Defense Minister Antonio Celso Amorim and top-ranking
military official General José Carlos de Nardi to discuss issues ranging from transnational crime to cyber warfare. President Dilma
Rousseff’s April 9 visit to Washington included discussions with President Obama on economic ties, education, and U.S. monetary
policy, among other issues.¶ In Washington, and during her speeches at Harvard and MIT, she touted Brazil’s new Science Without
Borders program, which plans to send up to one hundred thousand Brazilians abroad to study in the next few years, the majority to
the United States.¶ After the summit, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will head to Brazil to
meet with their counterparts on a range of issues. These stepped-up interchanges highlight the new reality that for most regional
issues–democracy, trade, environment, or security–the United States’ ability to make progress will depend on Brazil. These visits
help lay the groundwork for a longer-term mature relationship with a rising Brazil on a world stage.¶ Expanding Robust Trade¶ The
recent flurry of exchanges provide a strong base for refocusing U.S. relations in the region, recognizing the importance of the
hemisphere for the country’s well-being. This should start with trade. Latin
America today represents a good
economic news story for the United States. Trade with Latin America has grown faster than
virtually any other region in the world, reaching nearly a trillion dollars. U.S. shipments to its southern
neighbors now total some $350 billion annually, roughly a quarter of all exports. With somewhat complementary industries and
economies, expanding these sales further can benefit all sides.¶ Energy too provides a promising opening, not
just for the economies in the region but also for shifting the fraught geopolitical balance for the better. Brazil’s huge oil finds,
Colombia’s rising output, and the possibility of renewed exploration and production in Mexico (if the next president reforms the oil
sector to allow foreign direct investment in the same manner as Brazil’s Petrobras), would all benefit the United States. The
hemisphere is also a renewable energy leader, with wind, solar, hydroelectric, and ethanol. If integrated, these alternative sources
could further the quest for a cleaner and more competitive energy matrix worldwide.¶ Finally, drug trafficking and organized crime
networks increasingly affect public security across the hemisphere. This may perhaps be the most difficult area for agreement, as
more nations now question the policies of the longstanding U.S. war on drugs. But with the threats transnational in origin, so too
must be the responses, building and expanding on current regional coordination.¶ The recent high levels of diplomatic engagement
between the United States and many Latin American nations are in many ways just governments catching up with the already deep
ties on the ground among families, communities, corporations, and supply chains. Sustaining this interest after the
Summit of
the Americas will serve Washington well, benefiting the U.S. economy, society, and global
position as it tackles more recalcitrant problems worldwide
! – China
Chinese influence in Latin America is zero-sum—China’s growing support sparks
Taiwan war
Fergusson 12 – Researcher at Royal Society for the Arts, Featured Contributor at International Business Times, Former
Conference & Research Assistant at Security Watch, Former Researcher at University College London, Master of Science, China in the
International Arena, The University of Glasgow (Robbie, “The Chinese Challenge to the Monroe Doctrine,” e-International Relations,
7/23/12, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/23/does-chinese-growth-in-latin-america-threaten-american-interests/)//Bwang
Taiwan – domestic, or foreign policy?¶ China’s goals in the region amount to more than the capture of natural resources. Although
the People’s Republic of China considers resolution of the Taiwan issue to be a domestic issue, it is with some irony that one of
China’s main foreign policy goals is to isolate Taipei internationally. The PRC and the ROC
compete directly for international recognition among all the states in the world. Nowhere is this
more evident than in Latin America, where 12 of the 23 nations that still have official diplomatic
relations with the ROC reside.¶ The historical background¶ Following the mainland Communist victory in the Chinese Civil
War in 1949, the nationalist Kuomintang retreated to the island of Formosa (Taiwan) where it continued to claim to be the
legitimate government of all of China. In June 1950 the United States intervened by placing its 7th fleet in the Taiwan straits to stop
a conclusive military resolution to the civil war and slowly the battlefield became primarily political, concerned with legitimacy.¶
When the United Nations was formed in 1945, the Republic of China (ROC) became one of the five permanent members of the
Security Council. This gave the ROC a de facto advantage over the PRC in attaining recognition from other nation states; particularly
as the diplomatic clout of the hegemonic United States supported its position as the true representative of the Chinese people, until
the rapprochement of the 1970s, when the Nixon administration wished to improve ties with the de facto rulers of China in order to
exploit the Sino-Soviet split. UN Resolution 2758 granted the ’China seat’ to the PRC at the expense of the ROC who were in effect
exiled from the organization, and the famous 1972 visit of President Nixon to China further added legitimacy to the communist
regime. All this resulted in a thawing of world opinion, and gradually as the durability and permanence of the PRC regime became
ingrained, countries began switching their diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.¶ The economics of international
recognition¶ In the Americas, the PRC had international recognition and longstanding support from ideological allies such as Cuba.
However, the
ROC has maintained more diplomatic support in the Americas than any other region,
mainly due to the small nature of the states involved and the importance of Taiwanese aid to
their economies. Li notes that “from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, roughly 10 percent of Taiwan’s direct foreign
investment (FDI) went to Latin America and the Caribbean,” [51] highlighting the concerted effort made in the region. Economic
solidarity is increasingly important to the formation of the Taiwan-Latin America relationship, for
two reasons. The first is that for Latin American states, the decision of which China to support is less
ideological and political than it ever has been; which makes the decision a straight up economic zero-sum choice. The
second is that Latin America is home to natural resources which are of great significance to the
hungry growing economies of the PRC and the ROC regardless of international recognition.¶ However, while the
decision is not political for Latin American countries, for Taiwan, every country which switches its recognition
to the PRC damages its legitimacy as a nation state in the international arena. The Table below shows
the designation of diplomatic recognition in the region in 2008.¶ Countries Recognising the PRC (China)Countries Recognising the
ROC (Taiwan)Central AmericaMexico, Costa RicaEl Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, PanamaCaribbeanAntigua & Barbuda,
Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname, Trinidad & TobagoBelize, Dominican Republic, Haiti, St
Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the GrenadinesSouth AmericaArgentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,
Uruguay, VenezuelaParaguay¶ On the other hand, for
the PRC, every state which withdraws its support for the
ROC takes it one step closer to being in a position where it can resolve the ‘Taiwan issue’
unilaterally. Subsequently, undermining Taiwan is of the utmost importance to China, and it has
taken to ‘outbidding’ Taiwan in offers of foreign aid, a strategy made possible by the decline in aid from the
defunct Soviet Union, and the West, which is pre occupied with terrorism and the Middle East. Li notes that “the region’s
leaders have turned to Asia for help to promote trade and financial assistance, and
consequently played the PRC and Taiwan against each other.” [53] Despite its smaller size, Taiwan has fared
remarkably well in this bidding war; focusing its aid investments on infrastructure such as stadiums in St Kitts & Nevis for the Cricket
World Cup in 2007.¶ However,
even Taiwan‘s economy can be put under strain by the seemingly relentless
PRC
picking off the few remaining supporters of the ROC – take for example, the Dominican case.¶ In early 2004,
stream of foreign aid which has brought only debateable and mild gains to the Taiwanese cause. This has contributed to the
Commonwealth of Dominica asked Taipei for a $58 million aid, which is unrelated to public welfare. The Caribbean nation had relied
on Taiwan to develop its agriculture-based economy since 1983. Diplomatic relationship was soon broken after Taipei turned down
the request. [54]¶ This incident showcased the fact that in economic terms, the PRC
is winning the battle for Latin
America.¶ Political strategies of the PRC¶ In political terms too; the PRC is in an advantageous position, thanks in part again to its
position within the UN. While it can be argued that China “provides incentives but does not threaten harm to induce countries to
defect from recognizing Taiwan,” [55] the
reality is that the use of force and direct harm are not the only
means available to an economic entity as powerful as China. It refuses to maintain official
relations with any state that recognises the ROC; an action which can be quite prohibitive to the
country being able to take advantage of the growing Chinese market. Although Domíngu ez suggests that
the PRC “has not been punitive toward those states that still recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan),” [56] the legitimacy of this
claim has to be brought into question – for example “in June 1996, China fought the extension of the UN mission in Haiti, to punish
the Caribbean nation for its appeal for UN acceptance of Taiwan.” [57] This
incident showed that China is prepared
to use its global clout to play spoiler and apply indirect pressure on countries to adopt its
position. Similarly, China’s experience with one-party rule has taught it the importance of party-to-party relations in addition to
state-to-state relations, further cementing the PRC by establishing a relationship based on goodwill and common understanding.
Indeed by the start of 1998 “the CCP had established relations with almost all major political parties in the countries that were
Taiwan’s diplomatic allies in Latin America,” [58] further isolating the ROC.¶ The effect on American interests¶ Were the
ROC
to be deserted by its remaining allies in Latin America, the USA would be disadvantaged in
attempting to maintain the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. A Taiwan that was not
recognised by any state from the Americas, or Europe (with the exception of the Vatican) would not be seen
as a genuine sovereign entity whose defence would be more important than the upkeep of good
relations between China and the West. As China’s economic and political position in the world
improves vis-à-vis both America and Taiwan, so might its ambitions. The U.S.A might find itself in
a position where it could no longer withstand the diplomatic pressure to allow the PRC to conclude
a settlement on Taiwan, perhaps by force.
Taiwan crisis is coming soon—any Chinese shift sparks conflict and draws in US
Mazza 13 – Research fellow in foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute (Michael, “Four Surprises That
Could Rock Asia in 2013,” Foreign Policy, 1/3/13,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/03/four_surprises_that_could_rock_asia_in_2013?page=full)//Bwang
Since President Ma Ying-jeou came to power in 2008, Taipei
and Beijing have improved ties and deepened their
economic integration: cross-strait trade reached $127.6 billion in 2011, an increase of more than 13 percent from 2010.
Some national security experts misinterpret this trend, thinking that growing economic interdependence will
overwhelm factors pushing the two sides apart, and that interdependence will provide Beijing with leverage it can
use to compel unification. But while Taiwan's businesspeople enjoy closer ties with China, the average Taiwanese
voter continues to move toward independence. Over the last 20 years, the portion of citizens of Taiwan identifying as
"Taiwanese" has increased from 17.6 percent of those polled in 1992 to a whopping 53.7 percent today; those identifying as
"Chinese" has declined over the same period from 25.5 percent to just 3.1 percent today. Support
for independence has
nearly doubled over the last two decades, from 11.1 percent to 19.6 percent. Support for immediate or eventual
unification, meanwhile, has more than halved, from 20 percent in 1992 to 9.8 percent in 2012.¶ Economic integration is
apparently failing to halt what Beijing sees as a troubling trend. With a cross-strait trade agreement and a
slew of other, easier deals already on the books, Beijing now expects Ma to discuss political issues. But Ma
doesn't have the domestic political support to pursue political talks -- in March 2012, two months after his
reelection, 45 percent of those polled said the pace of cross-strait exchanges was "just right," but the share of respondents
answering "too fast" had increased to 32.6 percent, from 25.7 percent before the election. Any
Chinese shift toward a
more strident Taiwan policy could portend a new crisis in the Taiwan Strait sooner than many
expect, as a lack of progress on these issues may buttress hawks in the new Xi Jinping administration.
And America would surely be dragged in: Even low-level coercive measures against Taiwan -- a top 10
U.S. trading partner and security ally -- could throw U.S.-China relations into a tailspin.
Taiwan is the most probable scenario of conflict between US and China—causes
nuclear escalation and miscalculation
Lowther 13 – Citing a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (William, “Taiwan could spark nuclear war:
report,” Taipei Times, 3/16/13, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211)//Bwang
Taiwan is the most likely potential crisis that could trigger a nuclear war between China and the US,
a new academic report concludes.¶ “Taiwan remains the single most plausible and dangerous source of
tension and conflict between the US and China,” says the 42-page report by the Washington-based Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).¶ Prepared by the CSIS’ Project on Nuclear Issues and resulting from a year-long study, the
report emphasizes that Beijing
continues to be set on a policy to prevent Taiwan’s independence,
while at the same time the US maintains the capability to come to Taiwan’s defense.¶ “Although
tensions across the Taiwan Strait have subsided since both Taipei and Beijing embraced a policy of engagement in 2008, the
situation remains combustible, complicated by rapidly diverging cross-strait military capabilities
and persistent political disagreements,” the report says.¶ In a footnote, it quotes senior fellow at the US Council on
Foreign Relations Richard Betts describing Taiwan as “the main potential flashpoint for the US in East Asia.”¶
The report also quotes Betts as saying that neither Beijing nor Washington can fully control developments that might ignite a Taiwan
crisis.¶ “This
is a classic recipe for surprise, miscalculation and uncontrolled escalation,” Betts wrote in
the foreseeable future Taiwan is the contingency in
which nuclear weapons would most likely become a major factor, because the fate of the island
is intertwined both with the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and the reliability of US
defense commitments in the Asia-Pacific region.Ӧ Titled Nuclear Weapons and US-China Relations, the study says disputes
a separate study of his own.¶ The CSIS study says: “For
in the East and South China seas appear unlikely to lead to major conflict between China and the US, but they do “provide kindling”
for potential conflict between the two nations because the disputes implicate a number of important regional interests, including
the interests of treaty allies of the US.¶ The danger posed by flashpoints such as Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and maritime
demarcation disputes is magnified by the potential for mistakes, the study says.¶ “Although Beijing and Washington have agreed to a
range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement and the establishment of a direct
hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the
bases for miscommunication and
misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historical reservoirs of suspicion,” the report says.¶ For
example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions would result in a military or even nuclear
response by the other party.¶ To make things worse, “neither
side seems to believe the other’s declared
policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very uncertain
endeavor, could be especially difficult in any conflict,” it says.
! - China ext.
Bad relations with Cuba forces them to align with China
LeoGrande, 2013, Professor of the Department of Government, School of Public
Affairs at the American University
(William M., 4/2/13, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After Chavez”, World Politics
Review, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-of-dependence-cubas-foreignpolicy-after-chavez)
Small powers have always seen international law and multilateral organizations as a bulwark against the depredations of great
powers, who tend to follow Thucydides' realist dictum that the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must. This
has been especially true in Latin America, where the Pan-American system arose in the early 20th century in response to U.S.
interventions. But when Latin
America fell into line behind the U.S. embargo in the 1960s, Cuba was
forced to look elsewhere for allies. "It was the hostility of the United States that pushed us to
improve our relations with the rest of the world as an element of our survival," Fidel Castro
told visiting U.S. diplomats in 1978. Cuba was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 -- the only
one from Latin America. By 1979, it had risen to become chair of the movement and was elected to chair it again in 2006. Cuba built
its international standing through traditional diplomacy, military assistance to anti-colonial movements in Africa and "medical
internationalism" that has sent doctors abroad to improve health care in more than 100 countries. Even U.S. President Barack
Obama has acknowledged that the United States could learn from Cuba's medical foreign aid program. ¶ Cuba's relations with
Western Europe started returning to normal in the late-1970s, when Western banks, flush with petrodollars, were eager to loan
money to Cuba to boost trade. Although the European Union's "Common Position," adopted in 1996, defines the EU's objective in
Cuba as "transition to a pluralist democracy," it has not been a significant obstacle to normal diplomatic or economic relations in
recent years. Europe, excluding the Russian Federation, constitutes 19 percent of Cuban trade. Russia and Cuba were estranged
during Boris Yeltsin's presidency, but relations improved significantly under Vladimir Putin. Still, trade with the Russian Federation is
less than 2 percent of Cuban trade. ¶ As
China's rapid growth has transformed it into a global
powerhouse, Beijing has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America,
and is now Cuba's second-largest trade partner. China provides Cuba with a range of durable
goods and capital equipment, and is investing in Cuban nickel and oil production. Like China's
relations with the rest of the region, its relations with Cuba are fundamentally commercial
rather than ideological, aimed at securing China's access to raw materials.¶ The best barometer of
Cuba's overall diplomatic success is the annual vote in the U.N. General Assembly on a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo.
Since the resolution was first introduced in 1992, the United States has lost every vote, 21 in all, by increasingly wide margins. In
2012, the tally was 188 for the resolution and 3 against. The United States was joined in opposing the resolution by Israel, which
itself has normal economic relations with Cuba, and Palau.
The triangular relationship between U.S.-China and Latin America will fail
Ellis, 2012, Assistant Professor of National Security Studies in the Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University
(R. Evan, “The United States, Latin America and China: A “Triangular Relationship”? Working Papers
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD8661_China_Triangular0424v2e-may.pdf)
Problems with the Triangle Concept¶ As with any paradigm for simplifying and organizing thinking about a complex reality, the
“triangular” characterization ¶ is incomplete. Such simplification is a common, and perhaps necessary, part of the
analytical process. The more serious problem with the paradigm, however, is that the nature ¶ of that simplification conceals some
of the most important and most consequential behaviors for understanding ¶ the dynamics of China’s increasing engagement with
the ¶ Western Hemisphere.¶ Like the triangle itself, these flaws take on an interrelated ¶ form: ¶ N The
triangle masks
other important actors that must be ¶ considered in the dynamic.¶ N The triangle incorrectly
encourages a view of Latin ¶ America as a unitary actor.¶ N At its core, the triangle is a subtly
neocolonialist way of ¶ approaching Latin America and its external relations.¶ Other actors¶ The
triangle concept downplays the importance of other ¶ actors whose interaction with the
United States, China ¶ and Latin America are also important. These include India, ¶ Russia, Iran
and Europe. While the triangle does not exclude ¶ these other actors per se, the focus on the interaction among ¶ China, the
United States and Latin America tends to conceal ¶ how other states, as well as non-state actors, play key roles ¶ in that dynamic. For
example, the sometimes competing, ¶ sometimes complementary balance in Brazil’s relationships ¶ with India and China, played out
in the Brazil-Russia-IndiaChina (BRICS) and India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) forums, ¶ is arguably as relevant to Brazil’s foreign policy
as is its relationship with the United States. Similarly, although much of ¶ the foreign policy of the Chávez regime is defined in terms
¶ of its opposition to US “imperialism,” Venezuela’s reliance ¶ on Russian arms, Chinese money and its “anti-US” alliance ¶ with Iran
occupy roughly equal importance. With respect ¶ 9 The term “poli-lateral” is used instead of the more conventional term ¶
“multilateral” to emphasize that Latin America should not be treated ¶ as a single actor in such interactions, nor should interactions
necessarily be thought of in terms of traditional “multilateral” forums such ¶ as the Organization of American States or the United
Nations.2latin america not a Unitary actor¶ The
triangle concept implies that it is valid to group together ¶
the nations of Latin America with respect to their relationships with the PRC and the United
States. But this is not the ¶ case. Latin America can be physically grouped as a geographic ¶ region, but referring to
Latin America ¶ as one leg in a triangular relationship ¶ incorrectly assumes that actions by ¶
the other legs—the United States and ¶ China—impact Latin America as a ¶ whole. It also falsely assumes that
Latin ¶ America “as a whole” deals with the ¶ United States and China. ¶ While it is possible to discuss the ¶ overall triangular set of
interactions ¶ at some level of abstraction, the nature of the relationship ¶ between each state and the PRC, and between each state
¶ and the United States, varies dramatically. ¶ Moreover, for many countries in the region, the most ¶ important issues and external
relations are with each other, ¶ rather than with the United States or the PRC. Further ¶ complicating matters, the dynamics of the
countries’ relationships with the PRC and the United States impact their ¶ relationships with each other. Brazil’s relationship with
Peru ¶ and other nations on the western coast of South America, for ¶ example, is affected by its expanding ties with Asia, which ¶
increase the importance of access to the Pacific Ocean. ¶ Venezuela’s interest in exporting oil and minerals to China ¶ provides an
incentive to improve relations with Colombia, ¶ in order to realistically contemplate overland highway, ¶ rail and pipeline links
between Venezuela and Colombia’s ¶ Pacific ports. Similarly, growth in trade between the PRC ¶ and virtually all of the Atlanticfacing nations, including ¶ Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, gives the governments and ¶ companies of those nations interest in the
Panama Canal ¶ expansion project.
Increased China relations with Latin America crowds out the United States
Ellis, 2012, Assistant Professor of National Security Studies in the Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University
(R. Evan, “The United States, Latin America and China: A “Triangular Relationship”? Working Papers
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD8661_China_Triangular0424v2e-may.pdf)
Moving from economics to political and social interdependencies,
it is important to note that Chinese trade and ¶
investment with Latin American regimes indirectly undermine the ability of the United States
to pursue its agenda ¶ in the region. This agenda focuses on multiple topics, from ¶ trade and respect for
private property, to defense of the ¶ interests of US companies, to adherence to certain principles of
democracy and human rights.¶ With respect to trade and investment, the availability of ¶ the
PRC as an alternative market was one factor leading ¶ Latin America away from the USoriented Free Trade Area ¶ of the Americas trading regime and, instead, toward establishment of a network of bilateral
free trade agreements. ¶ Under these agreements certain nations, such as Chile, Peru ¶ and Costa Rica, would attempt
to both take advantage of ¶ the emerging Chinese market and serve as the link through ¶
which other nations in the region would do the same.11¶ Loans, investments and commodity
purchases from ¶ China have allowed regimes relatively hostile to the United ¶ States, such as
Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, to turn their ¶ backs on Western lending institutions like the
International ¶ Monetary Fund and the World Bank. They also opened the ¶ way in some cases for default on
loans, the nationalization of industries or other actions hostile to the interests of ¶ Western companies; in the short term, these
regimes were ¶ able to sidestep the negative consequences that such actions ¶ bring from traditional capital markets. ¶ Over the
long term, however, there is potential for ¶ a “feedback effect” beneficial to the United States and ¶ other Western investors. High
interest rates in the case ¶ of Ecuadoran loans12 and the questionable loan terms in Venezuela13 have already been used as political
fodder by ¶ the opposition in those countries,14 increasing the likelihood that an explicit movement away from such loans and ¶
capital, and back to Western financial markets and institutions, may be on the agenda when changes in political ¶ regime occur in
these states.¶ Chinese
purchases, loans and investments in Latin ¶ America have undercut the
United States’ leverage in ¶ demanding adherence to certain practices of democracy, ¶ human
rights and free trade. This is particularly relevant ¶ with respect to the nations in the Bolivarian Alliance for ¶ the Americas
(ALBA). In contrast to Western governments ¶ and institutions, Chinese investors traditionally do not link ¶ their loans and
investments to the political practices of the ¶ recipient states. That said, recognition of the PRC diplomatically is often an implicit
condition, as is special treatment ¶ of Chinese investments and protection from expropriations ¶ and other administrative action for
companies operating in ¶ the country—even where such actions are being taken at ¶ the same time against Western companies.¶
Terror Adv.
1AC Adv.
Obama announced cutbacks in counterterror efforts – such cuts make efficiency
in anti-terror efforts more important
Tourangbam 13 [Monish Tourangbam, Eurasia Review, 6/29/13
http://www.eurasiareview.com/29062013-rethinking-us-counter-terrorism-policy-analysis-2/]
Close to 12 years after the 9/11 attacks that led to the global war on terror, and defined the landscape of US foreign policy and
national security strategy, President Barack Obama delivered a landmark speech, seeking to reorient US counter-terrorism policy.
Speaking at the National Defense University in Washington D.C. Obama
outlined a comprehensive strategy that
aimed at trimming down the predominance that counter-terrorism had occupied in US
policymaking. This has been timed with the continuing drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan, a process that, by the end of
2014, would transfer combat responsibilities to Afghan forces, committing the residual US forces to only a training and advisory role,
albeit, stationing some special operations forces to make sure that the Al Qaeda is never again able to attack the US homeland. The
speech also made public Obama’s intention to scale down the drone campaign, subject it to tighter scrutiny and oversight, and
recommit his second term to finally closing the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison facility. As such, this
new realignment
an attempt to gauge the evolving nature of threats to the United
States, and respond with a proportionate use of force. Obama acknowledged continuing threats from
terrorists, both external and home-grown, but he did not consider them an existential threat, thus accounting for the
in US counter-terrorism policy is
reassessment necessary in how the US responded to them. He used the occasion to make it clear that the operation undertaken to
kill Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad was one-of-a-kind and not the norm, given the risks involved and the negative
repercussions it had for US-Pakistan relations.
The inclusion of Cuba on the terror list severely impedes the US war on terror –
Resource distraction, Credibility, and Cooperation
Levy 11 – Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Affairs at
the University of Denver, received the Leonard Marks Essay Award of the American Academy of Diplomacy, masters degree from
Columbia in International Affairs. (Arturo Lopez-Levy, “A Call for Cuba’s Removal from the List of State Sponsers of Terrorism”,
Center for International policy/Latin American Working Group, 12/1/11,
http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf)// EO
including Cuba on the terrorist list harms American ¶ efforts and
leadership in the Global War against terrorism. Cuba’s inclusion on the list is based on bogus
allegations that undermine its credibility. By ¶ lumping Cuba together with Iran, Syria, and
Sudan, a potentially effective foreign policy tool for ¶ warning Americans and the international
community against countries that “repeatedly provide ¶ support for international terrorism”
becomes a list of governments that some South Floridians ¶ don’t like. Foreign policy is not about
So, let me discuss the first issue, why
therapy. If the goal is to provide right wing Cuban ¶ Americans a venue for catharsis, there are other ways less harmful to US
national security for ¶ them to vent their frustrations.¶ The
list of terrorism sponsoring nations should be a
bargaining tool for dealing with, well, ¶ countries that engage in or sponsor terrorism. The
misuse of a first level national security ¶ concern must give pause to responsible members of the Washington
Foreign Policy community. ¶ First, it distracts efforts and resources in the wrong direction, taking eyes
and dollars from ¶ where the real threats are. Second, it sends the wrong messages to other
countries, diminishing ¶ the appeal of the list as a warning against countries such as Iran or
Syria, in which the threat of ¶ cooperation with and sponsorship of terrorist groups such as Hamas
and Hezbollah against the ¶ United States and our allies is really serious. Third, it weakens the
capacity of US allies like Israel ¶ or India, who are real targets of terrorist threats, to make a case for
sanctioning or monitoring ¶ of countries or entities such as Iran whose presence on the list is
justified. ¶ The three Cuba Reports (2008, 09, and 10) by the State Department Office of the Coordinator ¶ for Counterterrorism
written under the Obama Administration are more an argument for ¶ removing rather than for keeping the island on the list. This is
particularly evident in the ¶ discussion of Cuba’s alleged links with three groups connected to international terrorist ¶ activities: The
FARC and the ELN from Colombia, and the Spanish ETA. In addition to ETA’s ¶ recent announcement of its demobilization, making
this a non issue, the presence of members
US counter-terror solves the Middle East but additional resources are necessary
to combat the increasing threat
Byman 12 – Proffessor at Georgetown University’s University Studies Program, Staff member
on the 9/11 comission, senior fellow at the Brookings institute (Daniel Byman, “Iran’s Support
for Terrorism in the Middle East”, Brookings Institute, 5/12/12,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Testimony/2012/7/25%20iran%20terrorism
%20byman/25%20iran%20terrorism%20byman.pdf) //EO
Iran has long been one of the most important and dangerous sponsors of terrorism in the
world. Although the Islamic Republic’s motivations have varied over the years, its leaders have
consistently viewed ties to and support for a range of terrorist groups as an important
instrument of national power. Disturbingly, Iran’s support for terrorism has become more
aggressive in recent years, motivated by a mix of fear and opportunism. Iran could become
even more aggressive in the years to come, exploiting the perceived protection it would gain if
it developed a nuclear weapon or, if thwarted through military force or other means, using
terrorists to vent its anger and take revenge. However, under current circumstances Tehran still
remains unlikely to carry out the most extreme forms of terrorism, such as a mass-casualty
attack similar to 9/11 or a strike involving a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon.¶ The
United States should work with its allies to continue and expand an aggressive intelligence
campaign to thwart Iran and its terrorist surrogates. After 9/11, the United States engaged in a
comprehensive campaign against al-Qa’ida: a similar global approach is needed to combat
Iranian-backed terrorism. However, as the United States is already exerting tremendous
pressure on Tehran via sanctions and diplomatic isolation because of Iran’s nuclear program,
there are few arrows left in America’s quiver and thus the United States will find it hard to
place additional pressure on Iran due to terrorism.¶
Iranian terrorism reaching a tipping point– Iranian politics, Syrian conflict, US
strikes, and oil prices
Byman 12 – Professor at Georgetown University’s University Studies Program, Staff member
on the 9/11 commission, senior fellow at the Brookings institute (Daniel Byman, “Iran’s Support
for Terrorism in the Middle East”, Brookings Institute, 5/12/12,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Testimony/2012/7/25%20iran%20terrorism
%20byman/25%20iran%20terrorism%20byman.pdf) //EO
Iran aggressively supported an array of terrorist groups in the 1980s, especially the ¶ Lebanese Hizballah.
Since the 1990s, Iran also championed Palestinian groups like Palestine ¶ Islamic Jihad and Hamas,
supporting their efforts to carry out attacks in Israel and in the ¶ Palestinian territories. Tehran
also worked with anti-U.S. insurgent groups in Afghanistan and ¶ Iraq. In terms of support for terrorism outside these theaters,
however, the last Iranian-organized ¶ anti-U.S. attack was the 1996 strike on Khobar Towers, which killed 19 Americans. Yet
Tehran¶ has shown a renewed emphasis on terrorism outside the Israel/Lebanon/Palestine
theater or war ¶ zones like Iraq and Afghanistan in the last year. Israel has been a particular focus, but
Saudi ¶ Arabia and the United States also appear to be in Iran’s sights: On July 18, 2012, a suicide bomber blew
himself up on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in ¶ Bulgaria, killing five Israelis, the driver, and himself and wounding over thirty. Israeli ¶
officials blamed Iran, though investigations to determine culpability are still underway;¶ • Several days before the Bulgaria attack, a
Lebanese Hizballah operative was arrested in ¶ Cyprus, where he was believed to be planning attacks on Israeli targets;¶ • In 2012,
Iranian-linked plots against Israel linked were thwarted in Thailand, Georgia,¶ and Azerbaijan;¶ • In 2012, Iran carried out bombings
in India and Georgia. In New Delhi, an explosion ¶ wounded the wife of the Israeli defense envoy and other passengers in her car;¶ •
Kenya authorities arrested two Iranian men believed to be IRGC members in June 2012. ¶ The men admitted they were planning
attacks. Possible targets included American, ¶ Israeli, Saudi, or British personnel and facilities;¶ • In October 2011 the United States
disrupted a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador in ¶ Washington by bombing the restaurant where he often ate lunch. According to
U.S. ¶ officials, the planned bombing was orchestrated by Iran. Had the bomb gone off as ¶ planned, it would also have killed many
U.S. citizens dining at the restaurant;¶ • Israeli security officials claim that in the last two years Iran and Hizballah have plotted ¶
attacks in more than twenty countries.¶ The
aggressive pace of attacks against Israel, taken together with
the plot against the ¶ Saudi Ambassador in Washington, indicates that Iran’s use of terrorism
is becoming more ¶ aggressive . In the past, Iranian-backed groups like Hizballah did not strike
in the United States, ¶ seeing it instead as a place to raise money and gain valuable specialized
equipment, such as ¶ night-vision goggles. Now, however, Iran appears willing to risk this access as well
as the wrath ¶ of the United States. As DNI Clapper contended, “The 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ¶ Ambassador
to the United States shows that some Iranian officials —probably including Supreme ¶ Leader Ali Khamenei— have
changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an ¶ attack in the United States in
response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime.”4¶ A mix of fear and
opportunism are driving Iran. As with other countries in the Middle ¶ East, the Arab spring shook Iran. At first, Tehran
tried to portray the revolution as a victory for ¶ Islamist and anti-U.S. forces, given that key allies of the United States like Mubarak
fell during ¶ the turbulence. The new movements, however, evince little sympathy toward Tehran though ¶ some new leaders want
to normalize relations to a greater degree. Indeed, some of the Islamist ¶ movements that are rising to power are exceptionally
critical of Iran’s form of Islamic ¶ governance.¶ Most
important to Iran, however, has been the crisis in Syria
where, slowly, Bashar alAsad’s regime has been pushed to the wall. Tehran has few allies in the Arab
world, and indeed ¶ in the world in general, but Syria is a true friend. The loss of Syria would be a huge blow to ¶
Iran , reducing its ability to meddle in Lebanon and in the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab ¶
arenas. From Iran’s point of view, the campaign against Syria is also part of the broader ¶
campaign to weaken Iran. Iranian and Hizballah officials have made repeated statements ¶
blaming the United States and Israel for the unrest in Syria, though it is not clear how much they ¶ believe their own
rhetoric.¶ Palestinian politics have also shifted markedly and for the wors e from Tehran’s point of ¶ view.
After Hamas’ founding in 1987, the relationship between Iran and Hamas was polite but ¶ limited. Hamas received money, arms, and
training from Iran and Hizballah, but Hamas kept ¶ Tehran at arms’ length, as its leaders were determined to avoid dependence on
foreign sponsors, ¶ which had often doomed other Palestinian organizations. Ties became far stronger when Hamas ¶ seized power
in Gaza in 2007 and, facing international isolation, sought more aid from Iran as ¶ well as weapons systems. Now this relationship
has frayed. Open ties to Iran, always unpopular ¶ among many Sunni Islamists, are further tarnished because of Tehran’s support for
the regime ¶ oppression in Syria. Hamas’ leadership has largely left Syria, going to Egypt and other ¶ countries. Some Hamas leaders
have also criticized the Asad regime’s crackdown and, in so ¶ doing, implicitly criticized Iran’s support for Damascus. So Iran has lost
influence with its most ¶ important Palestinian partner and lost support among Palestinians in general.¶ Tehran
also sees
Israel and the United States as on the offensive. The killing of Iranian ¶ nuclear scientists,
explosions that destroyed Iranian missile facilities, the cyber attack that set ¶ back Iran’s
nuclear program, and other aggressive, but covert, measures are considered part of a ¶ lowlevel but nevertheless real war that the United States and Israel are engaged in – one that has
escalated in recent years . From Iran’s point of view, its own violence is a response to the war ¶ that is already being
waged against the clerical regime.¶ The impressive sanctions the United States and its allies have
orchestrated against Iran ¶ have hit the regime hard. Regime officials have admitted that the sanctions are
causing Tehran ¶ serious economic problems, a rare public confession that U.S. policy is having an impact, as ¶
opposed to the usual rhetoric of defiance. In addition, the cutback in oil purchases from Iran’s ¶ important
customers has led to a plunge in the price and volume of Iran’s most important export ¶ and
lifeblood of the Iranian economy. Beyond the economic impact, the success of these ¶ measures also reinforces
Tehran’s sense of diplomatic isolation. ¶ Yet even as Iran feels the pressure, it also believes that it can fight
back. Iranian officials ¶ see the United States as on its heels given its withdrawal from Iraq and
the coming drawdown in ¶ Afghanistan. In both instances, the United States initially vowed to transform the country
¶
and ¶ isolate pro-Iranian voices. In Iraq, Iran today is the most influential outside power, particularly ¶ in Shia areas though Iran also
has sway in the Kurdish north. Iran is less powerful in ¶ Afghanistan, where Pakistan is the dominant force backing anti-U.S. and antiregime elements. ¶ However, there too the
United States is leaving without achieving its proclaimed
objectives, and ¶ anti-U.S. forces may fill the void. In both cases, the violence in these countries –
supported in ¶ part by Iran – was a major factor influencing U.S. decisions to reduce its
commitment. So from ¶ Iran’s point of view, the lesson is simple: hit the United States hard
and persistently, and it will ¶ back down.¶ A shift in domestic politics may also explain Tehran’s
more aggressive policies. Since ¶ the early 1990s, it has been common to divide the complex Iranian
political scene and describe it ¶ as a battle between “hardliners” and “pragmatists.” And during the
tenure of President ¶ Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) and the so-called “Green Revolution” (2009) there was hope ¶ that Tehran
would reform and embrace a more moderate foreign policy or even that the clerical ¶ regime as we know it would collapse.
In
crushing the reformist movement and the Green 7¶ Revolution, Iran’s hardline camp has narrowed the
Iranian political scene. Within elite ranks,¶ there are fewer voices that question the value of ties to
terrorists. In recent years hardliners from ¶ the IRGC have entered politics in greater numbers and assumed more important
positions in the ¶ national security bureaucracy. For the most part these individuals are not fanatical, but they have ¶ a
worldview that sees revolutionary violence as valuable for its own sake and an important tool
¶ of state.
Iranian terrorists have and will use biological and nuclear weapons to target
Israel
Kahili 12 – CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, author of “A Time to Betray”, writer
fro the Washington Times (Reza Kahili, “Kahili: Iran Admits Giving WMDs to Terrorists”,
Washington Times, 8/14/12, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/14/iranadmits-giving-wmds-to-terrorists/?page=all) //EO
Israel will be obliterated by chemical, microbial and nuclear bombs, Iranis warning, but those
weapons of mass destruction will be used first on Tel Aviv by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad at
the start of a decades-old Muslim dream of destroying the Jewish state.¶ An alarming commentary last
week in Mashregh, the media outlet ofIran’s Revolutionary Guards, confirmed that the Islamic regime not only has
WMDs but has armed its terrorist proxies with them. Mashregh speaks for the regime.¶ It warned Israel that
if the fighting in Syria does not stop, an all-out attack on the Jewish state will be launched and that at
zero hour, Tel Aviv will be the first city to be destroyed.¶ “The threat to retaliate against Israel
with weapons of mass destruction is credible,” said Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, executive director
of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, who previously served on theHouse Armed
Services Committee and with the CIA. “A highly credible source in 2005 warned that a decision had been made at the
highest level of the Iranian government to arm numerous ballistic missiles with chemical and biological warheads to retaliate
against Israel if Iran’s vital interests were endangered. The fall of [Syrian President Bashar] Assadwould constitute
endangerment of Iran’s vital interest.”¶ The commentary said that for 18 months, Israel, with all its power, has tried
to reshape Islamic movements that have targeted the “Zionists” into a conflict between
Muslims, with Syria at the center of its efforts.¶ The Mashregh column charged that Israel is behind the Syrian
crisis in order to strategically change the geopolitics of the region and defeat one of the main players in the Islamic world’s
“resistance front.” It
warnedIsrael that with the direction it has chosen, “There is a dead end, and
the threat of mass killing awaits.Ӧ The commentary recalled the doctrine of the founder of the Islamic revolution,
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: “If they stand against our religion, we will stand against their world. If all this bloodshed is to
provide a better future for Israel, we will destroy their world.Ӧ The lengthy analysis claimed that several
forces are involved on both the diplomatic and military fronts to break the Syrian “resistance front.”¶ It cited Turkish forces on Syria’s
border with that NATO country but also claimed there are American forces along the Golan Heights and in Jordan, and Saudi, Qatar and
French forces at the Syrian border with Lebanon.¶ “Their defeat from the fronts within [Syria] and the movement of their forces on the
borders are signs that the world’s Zionists have lost hope on the capability of [anti-Assad] terrorists against Syrian forces and now are
looking for an opportunity to get the armed forces of others involved,” the commentary said.¶ A strategic look at the situation in
Syria, it said, shows that in order to safeguard Damascus andBashar Assad’s regime, it is necessary to destroy “the center responsible for
these destructions, which will force the enemy to retreat.” To that end, Iran will break “the security of Israel by targeting Tel Aviv.”¶
The commentary, citing the weak economies in America and Europe, said that in an all-out confrontation between the “resistance
front” and Israel, the West will stay out of it, not wanting to fightSyria with a military of 220,000 military personnel and 240,000
reserves, Iran’s massive forces andHezbollah.¶ Should Israel and its allies succeed in unraveling Syria so the legitimate Assad
regime loses control, the commentary said, there are but two scenarios:¶ “Groups
armed with weapons of mass
destruction (chemical, microbial and nuclear bombs), which have been obtained on the black
market, will surely target Tel Aviv.¶ “Other countries with different motivations from revenge to a change in the
balance of power in the region looking for the elimination of Israel from the world’s map will use the
chaos created without accepting any responsibility.” (Right below this point, Mashregh put up a picture of an
atomic blast.)¶ “Who can guarantee that armed groups or certain countries have not already
armed themselves with weapons of mass destruction or that weapons of mass destruction
obtained from the former Soviet republics after the fall of Soviet Union will not find their way into Tel
Aviv?” the commentary asked. “It is best to stop the violence in Syria or the order to attack will be issued.”¶ As I reported last
October and again recently, several sources have confirmed that Iran obtained at least two nuclear bombs from former Soviet
republics and several neutron bombs possibly from North Korea. Iran and Syria also hold a large stockpile of
chemical weapons.¶ “Although I have no current factual information about a possible Iranian biological weapons
program, Iranian circumstances, past behavior and policies make it virtually certain that Iran has such
a program,” said Fritz Ermarth, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council. “This means
that, should they choose to do so, Iran’s leaders could put biological weapons in the hands of their own
commando teams or terrorist groups they trusted for covert delivery in attacks on Israel or the U.S.
or other targets. Hence, the threats of such WMD attacks should be taken seriously. They may be
bluster, but of the most dangerous sort.”
New gene synthesis tech makes bioterror uniquely likely
CBS 11 – International news source (“Clinton: Gene Synthesis Raises Bioweapon Threat”, CBS,
12/7/11, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57338301/clinton-gene-synthesis-raisesbioweapon-threat/) //EO
GENEVA - New gene assembly technology that offers great benefits for scientific research could also be used
by terrorists to create biological weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned
Wednesday.¶ The threat from bioweapons has drawn little attention in recent years, as governments
focused more on the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation to countries such as Iran and North Korea.¶ But
experts have warned that the increasing ease with which bioweapons can be created might be
used by terror groups to develop and spread new diseases that could mimic the effects of the fictional
global epidemic portrayed in the Hollywood thriller "Contagion."¶ Many have been calling on the elimination of current viruses
and diseases that, if in the wrong hands, could be a powerful weapon. The U.S. announced plans to destroy
their smallpox stockpile in May 2011, despite protests from the public. The government feared that terrorists could use the virus to
unleash a devastating attack. The disease, which killed one-third of those who were infected, was last seen in 1978.¶ As late as 2010,
a congressional mandated panel reported that the
U.S. would not be prepared for a bioweapon attack. The
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation said the Obama
administration failed in its efforts to prepare for and respond to a biological attack, such as the
release of deadly viruses or bacteria. After that report, Obama announced during his State of the Union speech that the country
would be making strides to make sure it was prepared for a biological terrorist attack scenario. ¶ The World Health Organization
(WHO) has been pushing for countries to eliminate their stockpiles since 2006. However, at the WHO's annual meeting, it was
decided that nations' could keep their smallpox stockpiles for at least another three more years in order to develop vaccines and
anti-virals, according to Reuters.¶ Speaking at an international meeting in Geneva aimed at reviewing the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention, Clinton told diplomats that the challenge was to maximize the benefits of scientific research and minimize the risks that
it could be used for harm.¶ "The
emerging gene synthesis industry is making genetic material more
widely available," she said. "This has many benefits for research, but it could also potentially be used to
assemble the components of a deadly organism."¶ Gene synthesis allows genetic material, the
building blocks of all organisms, to be artificially assembled in the lab, greatly speeding up the creation
of artificial viruses and bacteria.¶ The U.S. government has cited efforts by terrorist networks
such as al-Qaeda to
recruit scientists capable of making biological weapons as a national security
concern.¶ "A crude but effective terrorist weapon can be made using a small sample of any
number of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment, and college-level chemistry
and biology ," Clinton told the meeting.¶ She cited the Aum Shinrikyo cult's attempts in Japan to develop anthrax in the 1990s,
and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States that killed five people.¶ Washington has urged countries to be more transparent
about their efforts to clamp down on the threat of bioweapons. But U.S. officials have also resisted calls for an international
verification system, akin to that for nuclear weapons, saying it is too complicated to monitor every single lab's activities.
Bioweapons cause extinction
Ochs, 2 – MA in Natural Resource Management from Rutgers University and Naturalist at Grand Teton National Park (Richard,
“Biological Weapons Must be Abolished Immediately,” Jun 9, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html)
Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological
weapons, many without a known cure or
to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or
deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear
winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on
earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier to control.
Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks
has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because
very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to
horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage
vaccine, are an extreme danger
bioweapons could cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people
outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical
weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once
the killing will probably never
end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually
forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could
wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola
a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons,
viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such
plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. Ironically, the Bush administration has just changed the U.S. nuclear doctrine to
allow nuclear retaliation against threats upon allies by conventional weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last
resort when our nation’s survival was at stake. Will the new policy also allow easier use of US bioweapons? How slippery is this
slope? Against this tendency can be posed a rational alternative policy. To
preclude possibilities of human
extinction, "patriotism" needs to be redefined to make humanity’s survival primary and
absolute. Even if we lose our cherished freedom, our sovereignty, our government or our Constitution, where there is life, there
is hope. What good is anything else if humanity is extinguished? This concept should be promoted to the center of national debate..
For example, for sake of argument, suppose the ancient Israelites developed defensive bioweapons of mass destruction when they
were enslaved by Egypt. Then suppose these weapons were released by design or accident and wiped everybody out? As bad as
slavery is, extinction is worse. Our generation, our century, our epoch needs to take the long view. We truly hold
in our
hands the precious gift of all future life. Empires may come and go, but who are the honored custodians of life on
earth? Temporal politicians? Corporate competitors? Strategic brinksmen? Military gamers? Inflated egos dripping with
testosterone? How can any sane person believe that national sovereignty is more important than survival of the species? Now that
extinction is possible, our slogan should be "Where there is life, there is hope." No government, no economic system, no national
pride, no religion, no political system can be placed above human survival. The egos of leaders must not blind us. The adrenaline and
vengeance of a fight must not blind us. The game is over. If patriotism would extinguish humanity, then patriotism is the highest of
all crimes.
Israel is reaching the tipping point and will retaliate to Iranian terror
Ronen 12 – Veteran journalist for Arutz Sheva 7 (Gil Ronen, “Netanyahu Vows ‘Forceful
Response to Iranian Terror’”, Arutz Shiva 7, 7/18,12, crs.org) //EO
**Netanyahu is the Iranian Prime Minister
Iran and Hizbullah appear to be behind the blast in Bulgaria Wednesday, which took place on the 18th
anniversary of the AMIA attack in Argentina that killed 85.¶ Voice of Israel Radio's military correspondent said
that Hizbullah and Iran are indeed the main suspects, but did not make the connection to the meaningful date.
The AMIA terror attack was also perpetrated by Iran and Hizbullah.¶ "All signs point to Iran" as the perpetrator of
the murderous terror attack in Burgas, Bulgaria, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday
evening.¶ "Only in the last few months we have witnessed terror attacks in Thailand, India, Georgia, Cyprus and elsewhere," he said.
Netanyahu noted that the attack took place on the 18th anniversary of the blast at the AMIA building in Buenos Aires that killed 85.¶
"Iranian
terror continues to strike at innocents. Israel will respond with force to the Iranian
terror," he said.¶ Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told IDF Radio that Iran may be behind the attack. "We know
what targets and tactics the Iranians use," he explained. "We are acquainted with the way they are
arrayed and their wide infrastructure, and unfortunately we are also aware of their
determination to carry out murderous attacks against Israeli targets."¶ The Foreign Ministry issued a
statement marking the anniversary of the AMIA attack. The announcement was not linked to today's terror attack:¶ "Eighteen years
ago today, in the morning hours of 18 July 1994, a murderous attack was carried out against the Jewish community center AMIA
(Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) in Buenos Aires. It was the second attack against Jewish and Israeli targets on Argentinian soil
– the attack on the Israeli embassy took place only two years previously. ¶ "Tragically, 85 people
lost their lives in the
AMIA attack, and hundreds more were injured.¶ "The sorrow and grief caused by this attack is
compounded by the fact that those responsible for this horrifying act, as for the one preceding
it, have not yet been brought to justice. After years of investigation, the Argentinian magistrate
concluded in 2007 that Iran was behind the attack and responsible for dispatching the murderers.¶ "The government
of Argentina appealed to Interpol to issue arrest warrants for a number of suspects, and this appeal was approved by the Interpol
General Assembly. Israel
condemns Iran for its responsibility for terrorist attacks around the world
and for funding, instructing, training and arming terror organizations and for threatening to
wipe Israel off the face of the earth.¶ "At this difficult hour, the people and government of
Israel identify with the bereaved families, with the Jewish community in Argentina and with all the
people of Argentina. Concurrently, we would like to congratulate the Jewish community, which has managed to recover from the
tragic event, to restore the community and maintain firm ties with the State of Israel. Furthermore, we
endorse the
Argentinian government's efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice."
Israeli strike causes global economic collapse and great power nuclear war
Reuveny 10 – Proffessor of political economy at Indiana University , PhD and M.B.A in public
affairs, published numerous articles in prestigious journals (Rafael Reuveny, “Guest Opinion:
Unilateral Strike on Iran Could Trigger World Depression”, School of Public and Enviornmental
Affairs of Indiana, 8/6/12, http://juneauempire.com/stories/080610/opi_691670553.shtml)
//EO
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely , have dire
consequences, including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash . For
an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would
not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the locations of some of Iran’s
nuclear
facilities are not fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are
shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians, but also the Chinese and, likely, the
Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and
nuclear facilities, developed early-warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and
upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli
strike — or even numerous strikes — could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time
to respond. A regional war Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike
capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and,
perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian
Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 ArabIsraeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixon’s shipment of weapons and
planes. Today,
Israel’s numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and betterequipped opponents. Despite Israel’s touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and
terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat. In the
absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israel’s military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its
alleged nuclear weapons , as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely
destroy most of Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring
oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime
trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean . Middle Eastern oil shipments would
likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide
to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to
the United States and Europe. The world economy would head into a tailspin; international
acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States,
immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela , and maybe Brazil and
Turkey — all of which essentially support Iran — could be tempted to form an alliance and
openly challenge the U.S. hegemony . Replaying Nixon’s nightmare Russia and China might rearm
their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to
intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973 . President Obama’s
response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixon’s nightmarish scenario.
Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the
United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Iran’s response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses
to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons, but would probably not risk using force. While no
one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary,
Israel must wait for an American green light.
III .
A unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark World War
UQ – Cuts and Overstretch Now
Budget cuts risk lack of terror readiness
AFP 13 [Agence France Presse, Global Post, 3/19/13,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130319/fbi-says-budget-cuts-threatencounterterrorism-ops]
FBI director Robert Mueller warned Tuesday that the sharp budget cuts affecting all US agencies,
including the federal police force, threaten crucial counter-terrorist operations. The FBI boss, speaking before a
House of Representatives committee, said that the $550 million in cuts over the next seven months until the end of the fiscal year
will mean, among other things, leaving 2,200 vacant positions unfilled.
Counterterror efforts struggling now
Dodge et al 12 [Michaela Dodge is Research Assistant for Missile Defense and Foreign Policy in the Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Lisa
Curtis is Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center, and Jessica Zuckerman is a Research Associate in the
Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation, Eleven Years Later: U.S. Should Not Lose Momentum in the War on Terrorism, 9/10/12,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/counterterrorism-strategy-us-should-not-lose-momentum-in-war-on-terrorism]
Last year, in the run-up to the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the Obama Administration released its new National Strategy for
Counterterrorism.[1] Under the new strategy, the Administration seeks
to treat terrorism under (1) a law
enforcement paradigm that failed to protect Americans from terrorism when it was adopted by the Clinton Administration
before 9/11 and (2) a “small footprint” policy for overseas operations. Following this strategy threatens to cede
momentum in the war on terrorism and augment the terrorist threat against the U.S.
One year later, the U.S. counterterrorism strategy remains flawed. The U.S. needs to name its
enemies, maintain the nation’s commitments abroad, fully fund the military, reach out to
allies, and truly defend the home front.[2]
Cuts and overstretch prevent effective counterterrorism – the plan solves by
focusing reducing the scope of the war on terror
Nelson 6 – Masters from Virginia polytechnic in Political Science (Micheal A. Nelson,
“Overstreatcehd and Underfunded: The Status of the US Military in the GWoT”, ETDS, 2/3/12,
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02072006-200108/unrestricted/Thesis.pdf) //EO
The events of 9-11 caused the US military to deploy across the globe in support of the ¶ Global War
on Terror (GWoT) with the assurance it would receive the resources needed to fulfill ¶ those
operations. As a subordinate arm of the government, the US military is entrusted to ¶ prosecute the policies of its civilian
leadership provided they receive the required resources to do ¶ so. As this thesis demonstrates however, the military is
struggling to reconcile how to deliver the ¶ goals of its civilian administration when it
simultaneously fails to receive the resources needed to ¶ meet their demands. ¶ The Department of
Defense (DoD) is experiencing a stark increase in its deployments ¶ and combat operations.
Unprecedented ëpeacetimeí use of Reserve and Guard forces and ¶ remarkable DoD personnel policies
have stretched the military thin. Despite substantial military ¶ budget increases, the military
fails to receive adequate funding for combat operations. ¶ Meanwhile, soldiers fail to receive the
appropriate equipment needed to fight the emerging ¶ threats of the GWoT. The military continues to thin many
of its own operations, increase the ¶ stress on its members, and over-work its equipment in order to meet the needs of its civilian ¶
government. ¶ Three solutions
exist: maintain the status quo, reduce the scope of the GWoT, or begin ¶ military
funding on par with past wartime budgets. The status quo produced an ¶ overstretched/underfunded
military. Threats to US security can not support a reduced GWoT. ¶ Therefore, the US should increase DoD
end strength, increase GWoT funding, and accelerate ¶ weapons research and procurement.
The US is running out of money to spend on counter-terrorism and Congress
blocks increased funding
Spiegel 6- acclaimed foreign policy correspondent, award winning journalist for Los Angeles
Times (Peter Speigel, “Army warns Rumsfeld It’s Billions Short”, Los Angeles Times, 9/25/6,
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/25/nation/na-military25) //EO
Whether troop levels increase in coming months, or decrease, or stay the same, one aspect of the US military effort in Iraq is
unlikely to change: It will be expensive. The cost of combat in Iraq has now surpassed $300 billion, according to government
estimates. Add in activities in Afghanistan, and the total price of the global war on terror is about $500
billion, making it one of the most monetarily costly conflicts in which the nation has ever
engaged.¶ Now the Department of Defense is in the process of drawing up its follow-on request for the remainder of FY
2007. Reports indicate that the Pentagon could ask for $120 billion to $160 billion, which would
be its largest funding request yet for the global war on terror.¶ After they take control of Congress next
year, Democrats will almost certainly investigate both the rate of Iraq spending and the manner in which it has been
appropriated. Much of the war has been funded through supplementals, so-called emergency
bills whose use in this case has become increasingly controversial in Congress.¶ "We're now at
$507 billion for the global war on terror and counting, and almost all of that has been pushed
through a process that doesn't give proper scrutiny to the budget. Are we spending it wisely?"
says Gordon Adams, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center who was the senior
White House official for national security budgets under President Clinton.¶ Last month, Congress approved $70
billion in spending intended to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the first six months of fiscal 2007, which began Oct. 1 for the US government. The size of the
request under discussion reflects both the continued nature of the mission and past wear-and-tear. Both the Army and the Air Force need billions to replace expensive hardware
worn out by the pace of warfare in Iraq.¶ Before the invasion of Iraq, the White House estimated that combat operations there would cost about $50 billion. That forecast,
however, was based on a quick end to the war and a rapid drawdown of US troops. Three years later, Iraq alone is costing the US some $8 billion a month.¶ Estimates of total
spending vary, due to the fact that Department of Defense records on obligations do not provide comprehensive specifics, and the supplemental bills voted by Congress do not
have the line-item details of regular sending bills. Congressional Research Service figures puts the cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other war-on-terror activities at $507 billion. Of
.¶ The drain of continued fighting in
Iraq has meant that the global war on terror has steadily moved up the list of the most costly
conflicts in US history (in terms of money, not casualties). In 2005, it passed the Korean war's inflation-adjusted cost of $361 billion. Next year
that, the Afghan campaign has cost at least $88 billion, according to CRS. Iraq accounts for the bulk of the rest
it will almost certainly pass the Vietnam War's $531 billion, making it the second most expensive US war ever, behind World War II.¶ Given the uncertainty of troop levels, it is
very difficult to estimate the US military's future costs in Iraq. Overall, each individual soldier deployed in Iraq for a year costs about $275,000, according to CRS. The cost rises to
$360,000 if required additional investments in equipment and facilities are added. Using
a scenario in which US troop levels fall to 73,000 by 2010,
and then stay at that level, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cumulative cost of the
global war on terror could reach $808 billion by 2016.¶ Meanwhile, the Pentagon and the
Bush administration have continued the practice by which funding for the war on terror is
requested in the form of supplemental appropriations. Supplementals are prepared much closer to the
time when the money will actually be spent. The Vietnam War, for instance, was funded via supplementals at its outset.
Later, Vietnam costs were folded into the regular budget process. Supplementals provide much less detail as to where
money will be spent than do regular budget documents, and receive less congressional oversight than do regular budget
bills.¶ So far, the White House has shown little inclination to fund Iraq and Afghanistan via the regular budget, despite some
pressure from Congress to do so. In addition, the nature of items paid for via these war spending bills
may have begun to expand, to include items related to peacetime missions as well. A
Democratic-controlled Congress will almost certainly look for ways to increase pressure on the
White House to abandon the flexibility and opaqueness of the emergency bill approach.
Cuts and overstretch prevent effective counterterrorism – the plan solves by
focusing reducing the scope of the war on terror
Nelson 6 – Masters from Virginia polytechnic in Political Science (Micheal A. Nelson,
“Overstreatcehd and Underfunded: The Status of the US Military in the GWoT”, ETDS, 2/3/12,
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02072006-200108/unrestricted/Thesis.pdf) //EO
The events of 9-11 caused the US military to deploy across the globe in support of the ¶ Global War
on Terror (GWoT) with the assurance it would receive the resources needed to fulfill ¶ those
operations. As a subordinate arm of the government, the US military is entrusted to ¶ prosecute the policies of its civilian
leadership provided they receive the required resources to do ¶ so. As this thesis demonstrates however, the military is
struggling to reconcile how to deliver the ¶ goals of its civilian administration when it
simultaneously fails to receive the resources needed to ¶ meet their demands. ¶ The Department of
Defense (DoD) is experiencing a stark increase in its deployments ¶ and combat operations.
Unprecedented ëpeacetimeí use of Reserve and Guard forces and ¶ remarkable DoD personnel policies
have stretched the military thin. Despite substantial military ¶ budget increases, the military
fails to receive adequate funding for combat operations. ¶ Meanwhile, soldiers fail to receive the
appropriate equipment needed to fight the emerging ¶ threats of the GWoT. The military continues to thin many
of its own operations, increase the ¶ stress on its members, and over-work its equipment in order to meet the needs of its civilian ¶
government. ¶ Three solutions
exist: maintain the status quo, reduce the scope of the GWoT, or begin ¶ military
The status quo produced an ¶ overstretched/underfunded
military. Threats to US security can not support a reduced GWoT. ¶ Therefore, the US should increase DoD
funding on par with past wartime budgets.
end strength, increase GWoT funding, and accelerate ¶ weapons research and procurement.
Links – List = CT Tradeoff
Cuba’s status on the list trades off with counterterror in Iran and Syria
Bosworth 13 – Former director of research at the Rendon Group, former Associate for
Communications at Inter-American Dialogue, freelance writer and political/security/economics
consultant on Latin America, B.A. in political science from Washington University(James
Bosworth, “Will Kerry Push to Remove Cuba from Terror List?”, Latin American Monitor,
2/22/13, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2013/0222/WillKerry-push-to-remove-Cuba-from-terror-list)
The Boston Globe reports that Secretary of State John Kerry is considering removing Cuba from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism. Of course,
administration officials denied that report.¶ There are three reasons to remove Cuba from the lis t. The first two are talked about most: 1) Cuba
doesn't fit the definition of a state sponsor of terrorism; 2) Removing Cuba from the list may be a step towards improving relations and accomplishing
other US foreign policy objectives.¶ The third reason is just as important: Removing
Cuba restores some credibility to the
state-sponsors of terrorism list and US counter-terrorism policy.¶ It is hard for the US to
credibly argue about which groups and countries should be sanctioned for supporting
terrorism when we keep a country like Cuba on a terrorism list for politics unrelated to real counter-terrorism issues.
The rest of the world takes US counter-terrorism policy less seriously because Cuba's inclusion
shows the US plays politics with its own terrorism designations. Parts of the hemisphere take US
warnings about Iranian influence less seriously because the US places Iran and Cuba on the
same level when it comes to counter-terrorism issues. Having a misguided Cuba policy in the mix with those debates
undermines the US position on issues related to Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria.¶ Keeping Cuba on the state
sponsors of terrorism list harms US national security by distracting attention and resources
from real threats and harming US credibility on counter-terrorism cooperation. Taking Cuba off the list isn't just
the right and smart thing to do for US-Cuba policy; removing Cuba will contribute to better focused counter-terrorism
efforts in the hemisphere and globally.
The inclusion of Cuba on the terror list severely impedes the US war on terror
Levy 11 – Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Affairs at
the University of Denver, received the Leonard Marks Essay Award of the American Academy of
Diplomacy, masters degree from Columbia in International Affairs. (Arturo Lopez-Levy, “A Call
for Cuba’s Removal from the List of State Sponsers of Terrorism”, Center for International
policy/Latin American Working Group, 12/1/11,
http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf)// EO
including Cuba on the terrorist list harms American ¶ efforts and
leadership in the Global War against terrorism. Cuba’s inclusion on the list is based on bogus
allegations that undermine its credibility. By ¶ lumping Cuba together with Iran, Syria, and
Sudan, a potentially effective foreign policy tool for ¶ warning Americans and the international
community against countries that “repeatedly provide ¶ support for international terrorism”
becomes a list of governments that some South Floridians ¶ don’t like. Foreign policy is not about
So, let me discuss the first issue, why
therapy. If the goal is to provide right wing Cuban ¶ Americans a venue for catharsis, there are other ways less harmful to US
national security for ¶ them to vent their frustrations.¶ The
list of terrorism sponsoring nations should be a
bargaining tool for dealing with, well, ¶ countries that engage in or sponsor terrorism. The
misuse of a first level national security ¶ concern must give pause to responsible members of the Washington
Foreign Policy community. ¶ First, it distracts efforts and resources in the wrong direction, taking eyes
and dollars from ¶ where the real threats are. Second, it sends the wrong messages to other
countries, diminishing ¶ the appeal of the list as a warning against countries such as Iran or
Syria, in which the threat of ¶ cooperation with and sponsorship of terrorist groups such as Hamas
against the ¶ United States and our allies is really serious. Third, it weakens the
capacity of US allies like Israel ¶ or India, who are real targets of terrorist threats, to make a case for
sanctioning or monitoring ¶ of countries or entities such as Iran whose presence on the list is
justified. ¶ The three Cuba Reports (2008, 09, and 10) by the State Department Office of the Coordinator ¶ for Counterterrorism
and Hezbollah
written under the Obama Administration are more an argument for ¶ removing rather than for keeping the island on the list. This is
particularly evident in the ¶ discussion of Cuba’s alleged links with three groups connected to international terrorist ¶ activities: The
FARC and the ELN from Colombia, and the Spanish ETA. In addition to ETA’s ¶ recent announcement of its demobilization, making
this a non issue, the presence of members
Cuba’s position on the list skews effective counterterror efforts and destroys US
credibility
Metzker 6/13 – writer for the Inter Press Service (Jared Metzker, “Pressure Building from U.S.
to Remove Cuba from Terror Sponsor List”, IPS, 6/13/13,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/pressure-building-for-u-s-to-remove-cuba-from-terrorsponsor-list/)
According to Robert L. Muse, a specialist on the legality of U.S. policy toward Cuba, there are currently
three ostensible reasons for Cuba’s inclusion in the most recent list: that it has allowed Basque separatists to reside within its
borders, that it has dealings with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and that it harbors fugitives wanted for
crimes committed in the United States.¶ Muse, who spoke Tuesday at CSIS, claimed the first two reasons were void because the
countries concerned actually condone Cuba’s relationship with their adversaries. Cuba is currently host to negotiations between
FARC and the Colombian government, and Spanish leaders prefer that Basque rebels remain in Cuba – and out of Spain.¶ These
interactions with rebel groups, in Muse’s opinion, “can hardly be a basis even for criticism”. It is only the third justification, that Cuba
harbors U.S. fugitives, which he said “could fairly bear description as a reason” for keeping Cuba on the list.¶ Cuba has harbored a
number of fugitives seeking refuge from the U.S. justice system. The most prominent is Assata Shakur, an African-American poet and
participant in 1970s black liberation movements who was allegedly involved in the killing of a police officer. She was convicted for
the murder but escaped and in 1984 gained political asylum in Cuba, where she has remained ever since. ¶ Early last month, Shakur
became the first woman to be added to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted Terrorist list. But Muse notes that
this designation was “arbitrary and capricious”, as neither she nor any other fugitive residing in Cuba has been accused, let alone
convicted, of international terrorism.¶ Politics as usual¶ Both Muse and Bilbao concluded that Cuba’s
continued presence
on the State Department’s terrorism list arises less from these shaky legal justifications than
from political calculations.¶ Others have arrived at similar conclusions for years. In 2002, a former
adviser to President Bill Clinton suggested that maintaining Cuba on the list keeps happy a certain part of the voting public in Florida
– a politically important state with a large Cuban exile population – and “it doesn’t cost anything”.¶ Muse disagreed with the latter
part of that statement, however. He noted that by behaving
arbitrarily in what should be a strictly legal
matter, the United States was damaging its “credibility on the issue of international
terrorism” and diminishing its “seriousness of purpose” in using the term “terrorism” in a meaningful
manner.¶ Proponents of the status quo argue the opposite, saying that by removing Cuba the United States would damage its
credibility by effectively making a concession. Bilbao explained to IPS that those such views focus on the “spin” of the Cuban
government rather than on the actual consequences of taking Cuba off the list, a move he believes would ultimately benefit the
United States.¶ “I think the
priority of the U.S. government should be to determine what’s in its best
interests,” he told IPS.¶ Muse went a step further, saying the list itself is a problem. He noted that even
while the list includes countries that don’t deserve to be on it, proven sponsors, such as
Pakistan, of international terrorism – albeit those with friendly relations with the U.S. – are
absent from it.¶ His recommendation to solve the problem was simple: “Just scrap the list.¶
Cuba is not a threat and its inclusion on the list is counterproductive
CDA 5/3 – Center for Democracy in the Americas, research group on US/Cuban policy (“LA
Times: Political Calculus Keeps Cuba on U.S. List of Terror Sponsors”, CDA, 5/3/13,
http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/la-times-political-calculus-keeps-cuba-on-u-slist-of-terror-sponsors/) //EO
Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times – Cuba’s communist leadership was quick to send condolences to the victims
of the Boston Marathon bombings and to reiterate to Washington that it “rejects and
condemns unequivocally all acts of terrorism.Ӧ Once a key supplier of arms and training to leftist rebels in Latin
America, the
Castro regime long ago disentangled itself from the Cold War-era confrontations.
Havana now hosts peace talks between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia that it once supported and the
U.S.-allied government the insurgents battled for years.¶ Havana still gives refuge to a few fugitive radicals from the Black Panthers
and Basque insurgents, and two years ago a Cuban court convicted 64-year-old development specialist Alan Gross on spying charges
for attempting to install satellite equipment without government permission.¶ But nothing
that Cuba has done
suggests its government is plotting harm against Americans, national security experts say . And
they criticize as counterproductive the State Department’s decision, disclosed this week, to
keep Cuba on its list of “state sponsors of terrorism.”¶ “We ought to reserve that term for
nations that actually use the apparatus of statehood to support the targeting of U.S. interests
and civilians,” said Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at
the Department of Homeland Security and now writing and lecturing on national security in the Boston area. “Yes,
Cuba does a lot of bad things that we don’t like, but it doesn’t rise to anything on the level of a terrorist
threat.”¶ On Wednesday, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said the administration “has no current plans to remove
Cuba” from the list to be released later this month. The island nation that has been under a U.S. trade and travel embargo since
shortly after revolutionary leader Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 is in the company of only Iran, Syria and Sudan in being
branded with the “state sponsor” label.¶ Kayyem
laments the “ diluting” of the terrorist designation
based on political or ideological disputes.¶ “We work with a lot of countries we don’t like, but
the imprimatur of ‘terrorism’ has a ring to it in a way that can be harmful to us,” she said.¶
Collaboration between the United States and Cuba on emergency planning to respond to the mutual threats posed by hurricanes, oil
spills and refugee crises are complicated by the set of trade and financial restrictions that comes along with the “state sponsor”
censure, Kayyem said.¶ “There are some real operational impediments when we have a system that begins with ‘no’ rather than
‘why not?’ ” she said of the legally encumbered contacts between Havana and Washington.¶ Politicians who have pushed for a
continued hard line against Cuba cheered their victory in getting the Obama administration to keep Cuba on the list. U.S. Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, a South Florida Republican whose efforts to isolate and punish the Castro regime have been a central plank of her
election strategy throughout her 24 years in Congress, hailed the State Department decision as “reaffirming the threat that the
Castro regime represents.Ӧ Arash Aramesh, a national security analyst at Stanford Law School, blamed the continued branding of
Cuba as a terrorism sponsor on politicians “pandering for a certain political base.” He also said President Obama and Secretary of
State John F. Kerry have failed to make a priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba.¶ “As much as I’d like to
see the Castro regime gone and an open and free Cuba, it
takes away from the State Department’s credibility
when they include countries on the list that aren’t even close” to threatening Americans,
Aramesh said.¶ Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the “state
sponsor” list, he said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad “very clearly
supports terrorist and insurgent organizations,” he said, the U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally
in the region with the official censure.¶ The decision to retain Cuba on the list surprised some observers of the long-contentious
relationship between Havana and Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five years ago and handed the reins of power to his
younger brother, Raul, modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has revoked the practice of requiring
Cubans to get “exit visas” before they could leave their country for foreign travel.¶ There was talk early in Obama’s first term of
easing the 51-year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay Tribune in
2009 in which he deemed the security threat from Cuba “a faint shadow.” He called then for freer travel
between the two countries and an end to the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba “that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.”¶
Cuba’s presence on the list trades off with counter-terror in the Middle East
Lopez-Levy 11 – Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International
Affairs at the University of Denver, received the Leonard Marks Essay Award of the American
Academy of Diplomacy, masters degree from Columbia in International Affairs. (Arturo LopezLevy, “A Call for Cuba’s Removal from the List of State Sponsers of Terrorism”, Center for
International policy/Latin American Working Group, 12/1/11,
http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf)// EO
Cuba’s appearance on the list of terrorism sponsoring states is particularly hypocritical if one
contrasts it with the absence of governments such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia that do engage in,
tolerate or provide physical refuge and ideological support to terrorist organizations such as
Hamas and Hezbollah who are responsible for the deaths of American citizens. The presence of
Cuba on the list is even more scandalous given that the Bush Administration removed Kaddafi’s Libya and
Kim Jong-il’s North Korea based on some mysterious criteria.¶ Washington’s persistent discourse that
characterizes Cuba as a terrorist state hinders the development of a strategic vision for
addressing the challenges Cuba presents to US foreign policy. Post-Cold War Cuba is not a military threat to
American lives or US interests at home or abroad. The island is a country in transition that is carrying out
market oriented economic reforms without changing its centralized, one party system. This situation calls for policies completely
different from those required for dealing with a terrorist menace.¶ “The
principal responsibility of the thinking
man is to make distinctions,” William F. Buckley wrote. “Physics primers remind us that ‘all of the progress of
mankind to date has resulted from the making of careful measurement’”. Secretary Clinton, who is well
known for her methodic and organized approach to politics, has the opportunity to leave a positive legacy in this area. Cuba’s
presence on the state sponsors of terrorism list must end.
XT: Counterror Solves ME terror
US counter-terror is working in the Middle East
Boot 8 – Senior fellow in the national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,
renowned author on terrorism (Max Boot, “Are we winning the War on Terror”, ?/6/08,
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/are-we-winning-the-war-on-terror/ )//EO
On balance, we are doing pretty well. Near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic
defeat for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally—and here I’m going to
use the word “ideologically”—as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.¶ Thus spoke CIA Director Michael
Hayden in an interview with the Washington Postpublished on May 30 under the headline, “U.S. Cites Big Gains
Against al Qaeda.”¶ Hayden’s upbeat assessment is shared by a surprising number of analysts
who have written recently about al Qaeda’s decline and possible fall, including Fareed Zakaria
inNewsweek, David Ignatius in the Washington Post, Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker, Peter
Bergen and Paul Cruikshank in the New Republic, former CIA analyst Marc Sageman in a new book,
Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the 21st Century, and Michael Sheehan, a former New York Police Department
counterterrorism chief, inCrush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves.¶ There is much
evidence to support their optimistic conclusions—certainly more evidence than there was to
support the previous conventional wisdom, propounded by many of these same writers not so
long ago, that the American-led invasion of Iraq was a great gift to al Qaeda and that as a
result we were losing the global war on terror. (Bergen, for instance, published an article just last fall entitled,
“War of Error: How Osama bin Laden Beat George W. Bush.”)¶ It turns out that, far from emerging victorious, al Qaeda in Iraq
has been driven out of its erstwhile strongholds in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala provinces. Its
last refuge is in the northern city of Mosul, and even there, thanks to a joint Iraqi-American offensive, attacks were cut in
half during the month of May. From Basra to Baghdad, Shiite terrorists loosely affiliated with Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi
army are also in retreat, thanks primarily to the operations of the Iraqi security forces under
the direction of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, al Qaeda has not managed to
mount any major attacks on an American target, much less on the American homeland, since 9/11. Those attacks that have
succeeded have been fairly minor compared with past al-Qaeda atrocities: a 2004 assault on the U.S.
consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killed five local employees and no Americans.¶ There is good reason to think that al Qaeda is still
reeling from the blows it suffered in the aftermath of 9/11. As Wright notes, “nearly
80 percent of al Qaeda’s
members in Afghanistan were killed in the final months of 2001,” and since then more have
been killed or captured in countries ranging from Yemen and Pakistan to Spain and Indonesia.
In his Washington Post interview, Hayden mentioned that since the beginning of this year alone, “al Qaeda’s global
leadership has lost three senior officers, including two who succumbed ‘to violence,’ an apparent reference to
Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan.” In an effort to avoid a
similar fate, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the top leaders, have gone into progressively deeper
hiding, probably in the rugged tribal areas of western Pakistan. This has kept them alive and free but made it difficult for
them to communicate with their followers or guide their efforts.¶
XT: Israel strike !
Israel strike triggers World War 3
China Daily 12 – Popular Chinese Newspaper (“World War May Erupt if Attached by Israel:
Iran”, China Daily, 24/9/12, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/201209/24/content_15777041.htm) //EO
TEHRAN, Sept. 23 (Xinhua) -- Iran says on Sunday that the World War III may erupt if the Islamic republic is
attacked by Israel.¶ Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Aerospace Division of Iran's
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) , warned on Sunday that an Israeli strike on Iran could trigger
the World War III , Press TV reported.¶ Israel, threatening to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities these days, has always
been highly concerned over Iran's nuclear program, which is believed by the West to head for
acquiring nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian purposes.¶ Iran has insisted that its
nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, and warned that it will retaliate if it comes
under attack.¶ Hajizadeh said in case of the eruption of such a war against Iran, the situation would be out
of control, according to Press TV.¶ " This war is likely to degenerate into the World War III ," Hajizadeh said,
adding that it means some countries might enter the war in favor of or against Iran.¶ "We see the United
States and the Zionist regime (of Israel) alongside one another and we can by no means imagine that the Zionist regime
would initiate a war (against Iran) without the U.S. support," he was quoted as saying.¶ "The Islamic Republic of Iran
considers the U.S. bases in the region as part of American soil and will definitely target them if
a war breaks out," he added.¶ On Saturday, Iran's Commander of the IRGC, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said that a
war on Iran "will eventually happen," Press TV reported.¶ "War will happen but it is not clear where and when," Jafari said, adding
that Iran is ready to confront any possible strike against the country.¶ The Israeli officials currently consider war as the only way to
confront Iran, he claimed, insisting that if
they begin a war, it will spell their destruction and will be the
end of their adventure.¶ The Iranian commander said that the armed forces of the Islamic republic enjoy capabilities and
equipment in hardware and software fields, according to the report.¶ Also, Hossein Salami, another IRGC commander, reiterated the
remarks by Jafari on Sunday that "Iran
will obliterate the Zionist regime if the latter takes any action
against Iran," the official IRNA news agency reported.¶ Salami said Iran does not initiate war against any
country but in case it is attacked by any country it will never stop its counterattack till the
annihilation of the enemy.¶ Also on Sunday, Press TV reported that Iran's Air Force plans to hold a massive military
maneuver in the southern parts of the country by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 2013).¶ "Maneuvers to be
carried out by Iran are peaceful and indicate that Iran and regional countries are capable of safeguarding their security," Deputy
Commander of Iran's Air Force, Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh, was quoted as saying.¶ Nasirzadeh said that the
presence of
non-regional powers in the Persian Gulf is "illegitimate" and emphasized that there is no
necessity for such a presence.¶ Non-regional powers cannot provide regional states with security, he said, adding that
the countries in the region can ensure their security if they cooperate with each other. ¶ According to IRNA, IRGC will also hold a
15,000-man maneuver in Shahr-e-Rey district of Tehran city for two days from September 27- 28.¶ IRGC Commander in charge of the
operations, General Nasiri told IRNA that the exercises aim to raise combat readiness of the ground forces.¶ Nasiri said that the
troops will conduct shooting, night war, relief and rescue operations, said the report.
AT: No Iranian Nukes
North Korea ensures Middle Eastern terrorists get nukes
Rosett 13 – Journalist in residence with Defense of Democracies, writer for Forbes (Claudia
Rosett, “North Korea’s Middle East Webs and Nuclear ties”, Forbes.com, 2/13/13,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/claudiarosett/2013/02/13/north-koreas-middle-east-webs-andnuclear-wares/) //EO
North Korea’s third and latest nuclear test is certainly a threat to Asian security, but the dangers go way
beyond Asia. For decades, North Korea has been one of the world’s most enterprising and
unscrupulous suppliers of weapons to the Middle East. Among North Korea’s chief and most
enduring clients is the world’s leading terrorist-sponsoring, nuclear-aspiring state, Iran.¶ A big
question hanging over North Korea’s latest nuclear test, conducted Feb. 12, is whether it was also
done for the benefit of Iran, or was possibly even an Iranian test, courtesy of North Korea’s facilities. One
telling sign could be the nature of the fuel used in the test, though that is not yet clear. Iran’s nuclear program has focused on
enriching uranium. By contrast, North Korea’s previous nuclear tests, in 2006 and 2009, have been plutonium based. But North
Korea by its own account has also been enriching uranium, and nuclear experts have been wondering if the illicit ventures of both
rogue states might converge in a uranium-based test in North Korea.¶ Whether plutonium or uranium, however, there are also
insights to be gleaned from North Korea’s behavior during its long record in the munitions business. There
is plenty of
precedent to suggest that when North Korea tests a weapon, the Pyongyang regime is after
more than simply enhancing its own arsenal. It is also looking to get the biggest bucks for its
bang.¶ For years, North Korean weapons tests have effectively doubled as marketing displays,
rolling out the latest round of North Korea’s lethal wares. “North Korea will sell anything to
anybody,” says Bruce Bechtol, a political scientist and former senior defense intelligence analyst
specializing in North Korea. Bechtol adds that Iranian officials have been present at every
major North Korean missile test, as well as both previous nuclear tests.¶ Since the 1960s, North Korea’s sales have run
the gamut, from conventional weapons, to increasingly sophisticated, longer-range missiles, to collaborating with Syria on the
construction of an entire clandestine nuclear reactor with no evident purpose except to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Among North Korea’s many clients over the years have been Egypt, Yemen, Syria,Pakistan,
Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Libya under Muammar Qaddafi, as well as Iran, and Iran’s satellite Lebanese terrorist
organization, Hezbollah.¶ In this trade, North Korea has created a niche for itself as a full service back
shop for rogue states, offering an unblinking willingness to violate any and all international
norms in exchange for cash, oil and yet more weapons technology. Not only does North Korea’s regime supply its clients with
weapons; it also has a history of providing weapons experts, military training, procurement and smuggling services, moneylaundering facilities and in some cases, help with weapons production.¶ The web of these dealings is vast, but perhaps a few
specifics will give the idea. In the case of Iran, North Korea’s dealings go back to the early years of the Islamic Republic, in the 1980s.
At that stage, North Korea had reverse-engineered Soviet Scud B short-range ballistic missiles, which North Korea supplied along
with submarines and guns to Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. This business partnership flourished. Reports emerged that in
1993 members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had been present in North Korea for the first successful test of a Nodong1 medium range missile. In 2003, a high-ranking North Korean defector, a missile scientist, testified to Congress about an official trip
he made to Iran in 1989. The mission was to fire a North Korean missile for the Iranians, and then come home to make more.¶ North
Korea continued selling missiles to any customer willing to pay — including Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya and Syria. According
to the 2004 report of the Iraq Survey Group, better known as the Duelfer Report, Saddam Hussein’s regime, shortly before Saddam’s
2003 overthrow, had been negotiating deals with North Korea — brokered through Syria — for missile components, ammunition
manufacturing equipment and engineers.¶ By 2009, U.S. intelligence services were reporting to Congress that Syria, already in
possession of one of the largest short-range ballistic missile arsenals in the Middle East, was developing longer-range missiles “with
assistance from North Korea and Iran.”¶ Nor have North Korea’s illicit deals stopped with missiles. More spectacular is the nuclear
file.
In the 1990s, North Korea joined Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network,
swapping missiles for nuclear technology. Through this network, North Korea then found customers for some of its
other wares. According to a 2010 report by David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Washington-based Institute for Science and
International Security, it appears that in 2001, via the A.Q. Khan network, North Korea provided Qaddafi’s Libya (another of A.Q.
Khan’s customers) with a compound used in uranium enrichment, uranium hexafluoride. When Qaddafi turned over his nuclear kit
to the U.S. in late 2003, U.S. analysts found on the uranium hexafluoride canisters minute traces of plutonium, which they concluded
had come from North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor. The report adds that bank records obtained by the International Atomic Energy
Agency showed that payments for the compound, routed through the A.Q. Khan network, “went to a company that is linked to
North Korea, implying that North Korea sold something to Libya.Ӧ I
XT: Iranian Terror !
Terrorism in Iran quickly goes nuclear
Goldberg 12 – National Correspondant for The Atlantic, recipient of the National Magazine
Award for Reporting (Jeffrey Goldberg, “How a Nuclear War Would Start in the Middle East”,
The Atlantic, 1/24/12, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/how-anuclear-war-would-start-in-the-middle-east/251915/) ///EO
How would a nuclear exchange in the Middle East come to pass?¶ There is always a chance, of course, that
the mullahs in Tehran would decide, while sitting around one day cursing the Jews, that since they now have a nuclear weapon, why
not just drop it on Israel and be done with it? I've always believed that, all things being equal, it would be better to see atheists in
charge of nuclear weapons, rather than religious fundamentalists. Men who profess belief in the glories of the afterlife might not
mind their own nuclear obliteration quite as much as I would like. And it is also true that the Iranian
regime is
rhetorically genocidal, describing Israel, and Jews, in Hitlerian terms: as cancer and tumors in
need of eradication.¶ But the mullahs are also men interested in keeping hold of temporal power, and it seems unlikely that
they would immediately deploy their weapons against the Jewish state. But, as I point out in my Bloomberg View column
this week, it might not matter. Put aside all the other good reasons the current Iranian leadership shouldn't be considered
appropriate stewards of nuclear weapons. The main threat posed by
a nuclear Iran is that, based on its past
behavior -- and assuming it will be even more adventurous and provocative once it has gone nuclear -- it will almost
inevitably trigger a crisis that will escalate into a nuclear confrontation with Israel : ¶ The experts
who study this depressing issue seem to agree that a Middle East in which Iran has four or five nuclear weapons
would be dangerously unstable and prone to warp-speed escalation. Here's one possible scenario for the
not-so-distant future: Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese proxy, launches a cross-border attack into Israel, or kills a
sizable number of Israeli civilians with conventional rockets. Israel responds by invading
southern Lebanon, and promises, as it has in the past, to destroy Hezbollah. Iran, coming to
the defense of its proxy, warns Israel to cease hostilities, and leaves open the question of
what it will do if Israel refuses to heed its demand. Dennis Ross, who until recently served as President
Barack Obama's Iran point man on the National Security Council, notes Hezbollah's political
importance to Tehran. "The only place to which the Iranian government successfully exported the
revolution is to Hezbollah in Lebanon," Ross told me. "If it looks as if the Israelis are going to destroy
Hezbollah, you can see Iran threatening Israel, and they begin to change the readiness of their
forces. This could set in motion a chain of events that would be like 'Guns of August' on
steroids." Imagine that Israel detects a mobilization of Iran's rocket force or the sudden
movement of mobile missile launchers. Does Israel assume the Iranians are bluffing, or that
they are not? And would Israel have time to figure this out? Or imagine the opposite: Might Iran, which
will have no second-strike capability for many years -- that is, no reserve of nuclear weapons to respond with in an exchange -- feel
compelled to attack Israel first, knowing that it has no second chance?¶ The nuclear experts I
respect most, including Bruce Blair, of Global Zero, and David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, both
call a Middle East in which Iran possesses a small number of nuclear weapons a dangerously
unstable place. Here is what Albright told me Monday about Iran's particular challenges in an escalating confrontation -- the
no second-strike conundrum: "In a crisis, you don't want to go first, but you don't want to go
second, either. It ends up in an unstable situation. Miscalculations can result in nuclear
weapons being used. Iran may feel it doesn't have second-strike capability and so would, in an
escalating crisis, feel it has to use what it has first." Iran, he explained, will be hampered, for
many years after it crosses the nuclear threshold (assuming it is allowed to cross), by a small arsenal of
comparatively modest bombs.¶ "Our estimate of their warhead design, based on internal documentation from the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) is that they would be building low-yield fission weapons of a few kilotons each" -- "Fat Man,"
dropped on Nagasaki, was roughly a 20-kiloton bomb -- "because they're forced to miniaturize to make it smaller for delivery,"
Albright said.¶ The Israelis, on the other hand, have a much larger arsenal than the Iranians could hope for for many years, and much
more varied and sophisticated delivery systems. It
is, from any angle, a hellish problem. Albright believes
that the Middle East with a nuclearized Iran (and a nuclearized Israel, and, presumably, Iran's
regional adversaries, including Saudi Arabia, seeking their own nuclear weapons) would be
much more unstable than South Asia. "The governments of Pakistan and India don't necessarily see each other as
mortal enemies. The relationship between Israel and Iran would be worse."¶
XT: Nuke Terror !
Nuclear terrorism is impossible to detect, causes extinction and highly due to
North Korea
Eurasia Review 13– Worldwide news analysis source (“A Nuclear Free World or a World
Riddled with Nuclear Terrorism – Analysis”, 2/17/13, http://www.eurasiareview.com/17022013a-nuclear-free-world-or-a-world-riddled-with-nuclear-terrorism-analysis/) //EO
As quoted by Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Nunn (Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007), Ronald Reagan – one of the most popular
U.S. president termed nuclear weapon “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but
killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” Similarly, they have also quoted Rajiv Gandhi from his
speech that he delivered to the U.N. General Assembly as the Prime Minister of India on June 1988. In that speech, Gandhi said,
“Nuclear
war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand
million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet
earth. We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness”.¶ Graham T.
Allison in New York Times has written an alarming article entitled as “North Korea’s Lesson: Nukes for Sale”. As Allison concludes
North Korea takes its nuclear program as a “new cash crop . . . easier to market than plutonium . . . harder to
detect and therefore easier to export”. It is also simpler to build a bomb from it. With quotes from former secretary of
defense Robert M. Gates, Allison further says that as history shows North Koreans will “sell anything they
have to anybody who has the cash to buy it.Ӧ Evidentially, there are many buyers. Hundreds of North Koreans are in Iran and in
other Middle East countries to work with nuclear projects. Reports say that they are also in Pakistan. Earlier
Pakistan helped North Korea develop its nuclear weapons program.¶ New York Times further admits that Ayman al- Zawahiri – the
successor of Osama bin Laden, “has been seeking nuclear weapons for more than a decade”.
Besides, the world’s leading daily discloses, “there are Israel’s enemies, including wealthy individuals in some Arab
countries, who might buy a bomb for the militant groups Hezbollah or Hamas”. Allison, in his article has
also quoted President Obama who has said that nuclear terrorism has been the single biggest threat
to U.S. security and if terrorists explode any nuclear bomb in an American city in the near
future, there lies a “serious possibility that the core of the weapon will have come from North
Korea”.¶ Technological advancement has made nuclear weapons smaller, cheaper easier to pack and transport. Moreover,
countries with underdeveloped economy may find it lucrative to obtain a nuclear weapon to
upkeep its security rather than maintain expensive conventional armed forces.¶ During Cold War
United States had manufactured the smallest and lightest nuclear warhead named W 54 to be tipped in a heavy rifle and was
deployed by the U.S. military in Europe against Soviet troops. Later in 1994, National Defense Authorization Act prohibited to
develop smaller nuclear weapons. However, in 2004 the provision under 1994 Act was repelled.¶ Wikipedia has described about
“backpack” bomb developed by Soviet Union. This consisted of three coffee can sized aluminum canisters in a bag connected to
make a single unit of bomb. Its detonator was just about six inches long with 3-5 kiloton yield.¶ It is estimated that Russia today has
some 2,000 smaller tactical nuclear weapons and United States has some 500 more. The number of such weapons with China and
other nuclear weapon countries is not known.¶ But when Soviet Union was disintegrated, large
number of those smaller
nuclear weapons could have dislocated or stolen from its stores and some people anywhere
might have kept them secretly and possibly are trying to find some buyers. The way nuclear
weapons technology has proliferated from U.S. to Soviet Union and from China and Western
Europe to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and some other countries , there are sufficient evidences to tell
a different and terrible picture.¶ On the other hand, experts say that Nuclear weapons have become much
cheaper than a fighter aircraft, patrol boat and a tank. Retired Major General of US Army William Burns says
that the history of Cold War is a nuclear history centered on the strategic preparedness of U.S. and Soviet against each other. In
Western Europe U.S. and NATO forces had remarkable strategic disadvantages in the presence of huge conventional forces of the
Soviet Union. On this backdrop, United States developed some tactical nuclear weapons that could be used as the battlefield
weapons.¶ According to Paul Schulte U.S. and NATO have taken “nuclear weapons simultaneously as a tool of deterrence, defense
and denial”. Smaller and lighter battlefield nuclear weapons were a part of this policy that gave NATO a tactical maneuverability. It
also helped them to bring battle to the battlefield than to extend it to cities, industries, hospitals, educational institutions, farmlands
and other vital infrastructures that could paralyze the country for months.¶ Moreover, even there
are some reports about
a very small compact portable bomb that could be carried in a suitcase. Wikipedia has even mentioned
about “backpack nuke, mini nuke and pocket nuke”. Such nuclear weapon weigh some 10 kg but with an explosion capacity of 10-20
tons.
AT: No Threats
Threat is large and imminent
Moore and Poling, 13 [EVAN MOORE, CAITLIN POLING, The Good and Bad of Obama’s
Counterterrorism Strategy, US News and World Report, 6/7/13,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/06/07/assessing-obamas-newcounterterrorism-strategy]
Terrorism Threats Remain – and May Yet Grow After more than a decade of protracted conflict,
it is understandable that the American people and its political leadership are tired of war.
However, the terror threats to the United States have not abated – in many respects, they
have worsened. What is required now is a renewed effort to counter and truly defeat al-Qaida
and associated forces by denying them safe haven, uprooting their state sponsors and – most
important of all – preventing them from getting their hands on the world's most destructive
weapons.
AT: Bioterror hype
Empirics prove the threat is real – assumes hoaxes
NWHC 6– US Geological Emergence and Resurgence: The Wildlife-Human Connection”,
NWHC, 5/?/6, http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/disease_emergence/Chapter6.pdf) //EO
The increased threat to society from bioterrorism that ¶ ushered in the 21st century within the
USA was a growing ¶ concern during the 1990s.36–40 That concern was based on ¶ increases in
terrorist incidents taking place globally, disclosures of major covert bioweapon development
in the former ¶ Soviet Union and Iraq, and evaluations that indicated a shift ¶ in terrorist
motivations. Primary motivations from 1975 to ¶ 1989 were protests against government
policies. Since 1990, ¶ the primary motivations include retaliation or revenge and the ¶ pursuit
of nationalist or separatist objectives.28,40¶ Concerns about increased risks from terrorism
were ¶ expressed in prophetic statements such as, “Many experts ¶ agree that it’s just a matter
of time until the United States or ¶ another country suffers a significant bioterrorist
attack.”36,41 ¶ Primary concerns raised at that time focused on the inadequacy of USA
preparedness and infrastructure to respond ¶ to an attack in which infectious disease agents
were the ¶ weapons.1,42 Indeed, from October 30 through December 23, ¶ 1998, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ¶ received reports of a series of threats involving anthraxlaced ¶ letters being sent though the mail. All were investigated and ¶ found to be hoaxes.
Nevertheless, the CDC issued interim ¶ guidance for response to such threats becoming
reality.43¶ Those hoaxes followed the highly publicized arrest of a ¶ microbiologist linked to a
white-supremacist group who had ¶ threatened to use military-grade anthrax in attacks against ¶
the government.40¶ In 2001, the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Biodefense ¶ Strategies further
raised attention to the dangers of microbial ¶ terrorism by staging a mock smallpox attack
within the USA ¶ called “Dark Winter,” which illustrated a major need for better ¶
preparation44 as did TOPOFF, a mock plague outbreak held ¶ in 2000.27 Concerns in the USA
about terrorism and the level ¶ of preparedness became reality with the infamous events ¶ of
September 11, 2001, and the subsequent anthrax attacks ¶ through the U.S. mail
system.45,46¶ The anthrax letter attacks of 2001 generated great terror among the
public,27,47–49 reemphasized that the USA ¶ population is not immune from terrorist
attacks with biologic ¶ agents ,50 and, despite the previous anthrax threats and letter ¶
hoaxes ,40,43 emphasized that the greatest threats from bioterrorism will likely involve
something never before seen as an ¶ application .51 Although the potential for biowarfare
remains ¶ a concern and disarmament efforts by the international ¶ community continue,52–54
the threat of bioterrorism is now ¶ of greater concern in the USA and in many other
nations55 ,56
A litany of empirical examples confirm the threat
NWHC 6– US Geological Emergence and Resurgence: The Wildlife-Human Connection”,
NWHC, 5/?/6, http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/disease_emergence/Chapter6.pdf) //EO
In Oregon (USA) in 1984, the Rajneeshee cult intentionally contaminated salad bars at ten
restaurants with Salmonella typhimurium as a trial run for another planned action ¶ intended to
disrupt local voter turnout for an election. More ¶ than 750 cases of enteritis and 45
hospitalizations resulted ¶ from the salad bar incidents.22,74 The cult’s attempted Salmonella
contamination of a city water supply was a failure.75¶ In 1996, a Texas (USA) hospital laboratory
worker ¶ intentionally contaminated pastries with a strain of Shigella ¶ dysenteriae stolen from
the laboratory. He then left those ¶ pastries in a break room where they were eaten by
coworkers who became ill.76 The following year, an incident of ¶ possibly intentional
contamination by the use of Shigella ¶ sonnei occurred among workers in a hospital
laboratory in ¶ New Hampshire, USA.77¶ Other attacks likely have taken place that were
unsuccessful or have not been identified as acts of bioterrorism. It ¶ was more than a year after
the Oregon salad bar events that ¶ intentional contamination was determined to be the
cause.78¶ Failed attempts to employ biological agents in acts of terrorism by the Aum Shinrikyo
cult also did not become known ¶ until later. This cult was responsible for the 1995 chemical
attack (Sarin) of the Tokyo subway system, and used anthrax ¶ bacteria (Bacillus anthracis) and
botulism toxin during three ¶ unsuccessful attacks in Japan.79–81 Although unsuccessful, ¶
their 1993 spraying of B. anthracis from the roof of an eightstory building in Tokyo was the
first documented instance of ¶ bioterrorism with an aerosol containing this pathogen.81¶ A
major difference between bioterrorism and biowarfare ¶ is that bioterrorism can have a major
impact with only small ¶ numbers of cases of disease. For example, the previously ¶ mentioned
October 2001, anthrax-laced mail within the USA ¶ caused disease in 22 people82 and 5
deaths.83 However, the ¶ billions of anthrax spores contained in those letters had the ¶
potential to create a major epidemic, including many more ¶ deaths. The resulting public fear
disrupted people’s lives; ¶ resulting investigations and responses were costly, and there ¶ were
extensive disruptions in public services
AT: don’t/can’t have/use
They’re a credible threat – Bioweapons are easy to get and disperse and require
minimal knowledge to make
NWHC 6– US Geological Emergence and Resurgence: The Wildlife-Human Connection”,
NWHC, 5/?/6, http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/disease_emergence/Chapter6.pdf) //EO
Biowarfare programs seek to “inflict sufficiently severe disease to paralyze a city and perhaps a
nation.”32 However, ¶ only a few of the thousands of biological agents capable of causing
disease in humans are suitable pathogens for this ¶ purpose.29,32 To be effective, bioterrorism
does not need to achieve the level of impact sought by biowarfare programs . ¶ Bioterrorism
impacts humans through fear as well as through disease and death, thereby exploiting
pathogens as weapons ¶ for mass disruption. Bioweapons are unsurpassed by any other
weapon relative to effectiveness and usability because they ¶ satisfy all of the following
attributes required for effective weapons.15¶ Attribute Practicality¶ Within the economic and
practical means of ¶ the perpetrator(s)¶ “ Biological weapons are relatively inexpensive, easy to
¶ produce, conceal and transport , and can cause considerable damage.”45 “ Only modest
microbiologic skills are ¶ needed to produce and effectively use biologic weapons. ¶ The
greatest, but not insurmountable, hurdle in such an ¶ endeavor may be gaining access to a
virulent strain of the ¶ desired agent.”58¶ Capable of reaching the intended target Great arrays
of delivery systems are available from handcarried and applied introductions to deployment
through ¶ munitions for the release of infectious agents and biological toxins.¶ Cause limited
collateral damage, in particular to those ¶ staging the attack¶ Self-protection can be gained
through immunizations ¶ for some diseases and other appropriate steps taken ¶ during the
preparation, transport, and discharge of the ¶ pathogen. Many terrorists often are willing to die
for their ¶ cause so personal exposure may not be a major issue. ¶ Because occupation of
territory may not be a near-term ¶ goal, residual disease and secondary impacts also may ¶ not
be of concern.¶ Must result in the desired outcome, usually death Selection of appropriate
pathogens results in high probability for the outcome to infect at least some of the ¶
population.
Bioweapons are readily available and simple to use
NWHC 6– US Geological Emergence and Resurgence: The Wildlife-Human Connection”,
NWHC, 5/?/6, http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/disease_emergence/Chapter6.pdf) //EO
Biological weapons are considered to be weapons of mass ¶ destruction or, more
appropriately, weapons of mass casualty. ¶ “Because they are invisible, silent, odorless, and
tasteless, ¶ biological agents may be used as an ultimate weapon—easy ¶ to disperse and
inexpensive to produce .”67 The international community experiencing the ravages from
chemical ¶ weapons during WWI, banned their proliferation and ¶ use. Biological warfare was
partially incorporated ¶ within the diplomatic efforts leading to the 1925 ¶ Geneva Convention
(Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous ¶ or Other
Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of ¶ Warfare).22,68 In 1972, the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling ¶ of Bacteriological (Biological) and
Toxin Weapons ¶ and on Their Distribution (BWC) was signed by ¶ more than 100 nations, was
ratified, and went into ¶ effect in 1975.69 Those and subsequent actions by ¶ the international
community have diminished, but not ¶ eliminated, the threat of these types of weapons. ¶ A
difficulty with the BWC is that it is largely ¶ an agreement based on trust; there are
inadequate ¶ oversight activities to monitor compliance.53,70 Major ¶ transgressions among
signatory parties to the BWC ¶ included strategic weapons development by the ¶ former
Soviet Union, Iraq, and others.22,31,71 These ¶ transgressions are ominous deviations from
beliefs ¶ of Vannevar Bush (cited by Lederberg70): “Without a ¶ shadow of a doubt there is
something in man’s makeup that causes him to hesitate when at the point of ¶ bringing war to
his enemy by poisoning him or his ¶ cattle and crops or spreading disease. Even Hitler ¶ drew
back from this. Whether it is because of some ¶ old taboo ingrained into the fiber of the race….
The ¶ human race shrinks and draws back when the subject ¶ is broached. It always has, and it
probably always ¶ will.”72 Some limited use of biological and chemical weapons has occurred
since these statements by ¶ Vannevar Bush. Nevertheless, in recent times, countries that possess
such weapons are reluctant to use ¶ them, many countries are abandoning these weapon ¶
programs, and most who possess stockpiled biological weapons are destroying them. However,
global ¶ increases in terrorism have resulted in an increased ¶ potential for infectious diseases
to become common weapons (Table 6.2).73 A virtual cornucopia of ¶ pathogens exist that
could potentially be used for ¶ terrorist activities . Many of these biological agents ¶ are
readily available, and bioterrorists need not have sticated knowledge or expensive
technology as the following examples demonstrate
Iranian scientists, working under orders from the radicals running the Islamic regime, have
genetically altered microbial agents in a nightmarish scheme to bring the West to its knees .¶
According to a source in the Revolutionary Guards intelligence unit with knowledge of Iran’s
microbial research and development, the scientists, with Russian and North Korean help,
currently possess eight extremely dangerous microbial agents that, if unleashed, could kill
millions of people.¶ As reported exclusively on WND on Dec. 16, the source revealed the
existence of a plant in Marzanabad, Iran, where 12 Russian and 28 Iranian scientists are working
on microbial agents for bombs. At that time, the source disclosed that Iran was working on 18
agents, with four completed. He has now provided information that with work at two other
plants, Iran has created a total of eight microbial agents, with research on insects to be used as
the vector to infect the societies of its enemies.¶ The eight agents are anthrax, encephalitis (the
blueprint of this virus, Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, was provided by Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez in an agreement two years ago with the Islamic regime), yellow rain (developed
with the help of North Korea), SARS, Ebola, cholera, smallpox and plague.¶ Iran, with North
Korea’s help, has genetically altered the smallpox virus that makes current vaccinations useless
against it. And research at two facilities that act as drug companies but are fronts for the deadly
research shows insects can be used as the vector to carry plague, infamous as the “Black Death,”
according to the source.¶ The outbreak of plague in the Middle Ages killed one-third of Europe’s
population, and it resurfaced in the 19th century in Asia, killing millions in China and India.¶ The
radicals ruling Iran believe their planned microbial attacks cannot be traced to them, the source
said. Through various commerce channels and trade with Europe and even through Mexico into
the U.S., the regime could release the infected insects and small rodents into populated cities,
causing an epidemic that could possibly kill tens of millions of people, he said.¶ “The most
dangerous biological weapons agents today are genetically modified or even synthetically
created in a laboratory in ways that not only make them more contagious, infectious and lethal,
but also are intended to defy existing vaccine countermeasures,” said Clare M. Lopez, a senior
fellow at the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank based in
Washington, D.C. “Among such (biological weapons) agents are (genetically-modified) strains of
anthrax, plague and smallpox.¶ “The open-source literature consistently describes Russia and
North Korea as sources of such strains and the scientific know-how to create and deploy them,”
Lopez said. “Likewise, Iran and Syria are reported to be among the recipients of such deadly
(biological weapons) agents; each of these countries also has an extensive medical and
pharmaceutical research and development infrastructure within which to produce (and also
conceal) its BW programs. Both Iran and Syria also have shared not only these pathogens, but
the artillery, ballistic missile and munitions technology with each other and, likely, with
Hezbollah as well, for delivery of such pathogens.Ӧ Lopez said that insects such as fleas, flies and
mosquitoes long have been recognized as natural vectors for the spread of deadly diseases and
that disease-bearing insects have been used in warfare for centuries, perhaps most notoriously
by the Japanese during WW II against China, causing the death of hundreds of thousands. While
cholera typically is not fatal if treated quickly, some strains can kill within hours. Bubonic plague
has been the cause of some of the greatest pandemics in world history.¶ The Revolutionary
Guards source added that the Islamic regime has already armed 37 of its ballistic missiles with
microbial agents, which upon launch would spray targeted areas as opposed to an explosion. It
has also armed cluster bombs with such agents, which could be dropped from fighter jets
spraying an intended area.¶ What makes it worse, the source said, is that Hezbollah, Islamic
Jihad and other terrorist proxies of the regime have now been armed with microbial weapons.
As reported in the Washington Times in August, chemical and microbial weapons have been
transferred to Iran’s proxies in the region.¶ The West, with its soft approach on the radical
regime in Iran, has provided the needed time not only for it to arm itself with some of the most
deadliest biological weapons but also, with the help of North Korea, to get the nuclear bomb,
and, despite what the West believes, is now working to arm its missiles with such weapons of
mass destruction, the source said.
Bioterror !
Bioterrorism is the single greatest threat to humanity – Ease of access and
creation
Matheny 7 – M.P.H from the Bloomberg School of Public Health of John Hopkins, PhD in
applied economics, research associate with Future of Humanity institute at Oxford, worked at
Center for Biosecurity, Center for Global Development, and NSC, world renouned risk analyst
published in dozens of prestigious journals (Jason G. Matheny, “Reducing the Risk of Human
Extinctinon”, Harvard University, 12/7/7,
http://users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/pmpmta/Mahoney_extinction.pdf) //EO
We already invest in some extinction countermeasures. NASA spends $4 million per year
monitoring¶ near-Earth asteroids and comets (Leary, 2007) and¶ there has been some research
on how to deflect these¶ objects using existing technologies (Gritzner & Kahle,¶ 2004; NASA,
2007). $1.7 billion is spent researching¶ climate change and there are many strategies to reduce
carbon emissions (Posner, 2004, p. 181). There¶ are policies to reduce nuclear threats, such as
the NonProliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban¶ Treaty, as well as efforts to secure
expertise by employing former nuclear scientists.¶ Of current extinction risks, the most severe
may¶ be bioterrorism . The knowledge needed to engineer¶ a virus is modest compared to
that needed to build a¶ nuclear weapon; the necessary equipment and materials are
increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating, a weapon can
have¶ an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006;¶ Williams, 2006). 5¶ Current U.S.
biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile¶ new drugs and
vaccines, monitor biological agents and¶ emerging diseases, and strengthen the capacities of¶
local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam,¶ Franco, & Shuler, 2006)
Remove k2 counterterror
Removing Cuba from the list boosts relations and is key to Iranian counterterror
Piccone 13 – Senior fellow and deputy director at the Brookings Institute, served the NSC and
State Department at the Pentagon, specialist in US-Latin American relations (Ted Piccone,
“Opening to Havana”, Brookings Institute, 1/17/13,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/opening-to-havana) //EO
In the context of such talks your special envoy would be authorized to signal your
administration’s willingness to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism,
pointing to its assistance to the Colombian peace talks as fresh evidence for the decision. This
would remove a major irritant in U.S.-Cuba relations , allow a greater share of U.S.-sourced
components and services in products that enter Cuban commerce, and free up resources to
tackle serious threats to the homeland from other sources like Iran . We should also consider authorizing
payments for exports to Cuba through financing issued by U.S. banks and granting a general license to allow vessels that have entered Cuban ports to
enter U.S. ports without having to wait six months. You can also facilitate technical assistance on market-oriented reforms from international financial
institutions by signaling your intent to drop outright opposition to such moves.
AT: Teror inevitable
US current strategy of counterterror and democracy promotion can eradicate
terrorism
NSC 6 – National Security Council (“The National Security Strategy 2002”, White House
Archives, 3/?/6, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/index.html) //EO
From the beginning, the War on Terror has been both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas – a
fight against the terrorists and against their murderous ideology. In the short run, the fight
involves using military force and other instruments of national power to kill or capture the
terrorists, deny them safe haven or control of any nation; prevent them from gaining access to
WMD; and cut off their sources of support. In the long run, winning the war on terror means
winning the battle of ideas, for it is ideas that can turn the disenchanted into murderers
willing to kill innocent victims.¶ While the War on Terror is a battle of ideas, it is not a battle of
religions. The transnational terrorists confronting us today exploit the proud religion of Islam to
serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion, of a totalitarian
empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These terrorists distort the idea of jihad
into a call for murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers – including
Christians, Jews, Hindus, other religious traditions, and all Muslims who disagree with them.
Indeed, most of the terrorist attacks since September 11 have occurred in Muslim countries –
and most of the victims have been Muslims.¶ To wage this battle of ideas effectively, we must be
clear-eyed about what does and does not give rise to terrorism:¶ Terrorism is not the inevitable
by-product of poverty. Many of the September 11 hijackers were from middle-class
backgrounds, and many terrorist leaders, like bin Laden, are from privileged upbringings.¶
Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq. The United States was
attacked on September 11 and earlier, well before we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime.
Moreover, countries that stayed out of the Iraq war have not been spared from terror attack.¶
Terrorism is not simply a result of Israeli-Palestinian issues. Al-Qaida plotting for the September
11 attacks began in the 1990s, during an active period in the peace process.¶ Terrorism is not
simply a response to our efforts to prevent terror attacks. The al-Qaida network targeted the
United States long before the United States targeted al-Qaida. Indeed, the terrorists are
emboldened more by perceptions of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve. Terrorists
lure recruits by telling them that we are decadent and easily intimidated and will retreat if
attacked.¶ The terrorism we confront today springs from:¶ Political alienation. Transnational
terrorists are recruited from people who have no voice in their own government and see no
legitimate way to promote change in their own country. Without a stake in the existing order,
they are vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse vision based on
violence and destruction.¶ Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists
feel and see are blamed on others, and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes
distant past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with this past fresh and raw, a
potent motivation for revenge and terror.¶ Sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation.
Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is
contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive
grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving
propaganda.¶ An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the appeal
of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents. A proud
religion – the religion of Islam – has been twisted and made to serve an evil end, as in other
times and places other religions have been similarly abused.¶ Defeating terrorism in the long
run requires that each of these factors be addressed. The genius of democracy is that it
provides a counter to each .¶ In place of alienation, democracy offers an ownership stake in
society, a chance to shape one’s own future.¶ In place of festering grievances, democracy offers
the rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the habits of advancing interests
through compromise.¶ In place of a culture of conspiracy and misinformation, democracy offers
freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas, which can expose and
discredit falsehoods, prejudices, and dishonest propaganda.¶ In place of an ideology that
justifies murder, democracy offers a respect for human dignity that abhors the deliberate
targeting of innocent civilians.¶ Democracy is the opposite of terrorist tyranny, which is why
the terrorists denounce it and are willing to kill the innocent to stop it. Democracy is based on
empowerment, while the terrorists’ ideology is based on enslavement. Democracies expand
the freedom of their citizens, while the terrorists seek to impose a single set of narrow beliefs.
Democracy sees individuals as equal in worth and dignity, having an inherent potential to
create and to govern themselves. The terrorists see individuals as objects to be exploited, and
then to be ruled and oppressed.¶ Democracies are not immune to terrorism. In some
democracies, some ethnic or religious groups are unable or unwilling to grasp the benefits of
freedom otherwise available in the society. Such groups can evidence the same alienation and
despair that the transnational terrorists exploit in undemocratic states. This accounts for the
emergence in democratic societies of homegrown terrorists such as were responsible for the
bombings in London in July 2005 and for the violence in some other nations. Even in these cases,
the long-term solution remains deepening the reach of democracy so that all citizens enjoy
its benefits .¶ The strategy to counter the lies behind the terrorists’ ideology is to empower
the very people the terrorists most want to exploit: the faithful followers of Islam. We will
continue to support political reforms that empower peaceful Muslims to practice and
interpret their faith. The most vital work will be done within the Islamic world itself, and Jordan,
Morocco, and Indonesia have begun to make important strides in this effort. Responsible Islamic
leaders need to denounce an ideology that distorts and exploits Islam for destructive ends and
defiles a proud religion.¶ Many of the Muslim faith are already making this commitment at great
personal risk. They realize they are a target of this ideology of terror. Everywhere we have
joined in the fight against terrorism, Muslim allies have stood beside us, becoming partners in
this vital cause. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have launched effective efforts to capture or kill the
leadership of the al-Qaida network. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi
soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al-Qaida in their own country. These brave citizens know the
stakes – the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and
humanity of their own traditions – and the United States is proud to stand beside them.¶ The
advance of freedom and human dignity through democracy is the long-term solution to the
transnational terrorism of today . To create the space and time for that long-term solution to
take root, there are four steps we will take in the short term.¶ Prevent attacks by terrorist
networks before they occur. A government has no higher obligation than to protect the lives
and livelihoods of its citizens. The hard core of the terrorists cannot be deterred or reformed;
they must be tracked down, killed, or captured. They must be cut off from the network of
individuals and institutions on which they depend for support. That network must in turn be
deterred, disrupted, and disabled by using a broad range of tools.¶ Deny WMD to rogue states
and to terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. Terrorists have a perverse moral
code that glorifies deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Terrorists try to inflict as many
casualties as possible and seek WMD to this end. Denying terrorists WMD will require new tools
and new international approaches. We are working with partner nations to improve security at
vulnerable nuclear sites worldwide and bolster the ability of states to detect, disrupt, and
respond to terrorist activity involving WMD.¶ Deny terrorist groups the support and sanctuary
of rogue states. The United States and its allies in the War on Terror make no distinction
between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because
they are equally guilty of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror, such as
Syria or Iran, has chosen to be an enemy of freedom, justice, and peace. The world must hold
those regimes to account.¶ Deny the terrorists control of any nation that they would use as a
base and launching pad for terror. The terrorists’ goal is to overthrow a rising democracy;
claim a strategic country as a haven for terror; destabilize the Middle East; and strike America
and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. This we can never allow. This is why
success in Afghanistan and Iraq is vital, and why we must prevent terrorists from exploiting
ungoverned areas.¶ America will lead in this fight, and we will continue to partner with allies
and will recruit new friends to join the battle.
AT: Drones
Drones solve, don’t increase anti-americanism, and are better than alternatives
Plaw 12 – Proffessor at Dartmouth in political theory and IR, PhD from McGuill university,
winner of Chancelor Award for Research, numerous award winning journals and books (Avery
Plaw, “Drones Save Lives, American and Other”, New York Times, 11/12/12,
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/25/do-drone-attacks-do-more-harm-thangood/drone-strikes-save-lives-american-and-other) //EO
This is a tough call. Drone warfare has done a lot of good for the U.S., and could cause Americans a lot of harm.
But my best judgment is that from the U.S. perspective, drone strikes have done more good than harm and
should be continued, provided that the Obama administration can offer more clarity on what’s being done and can provide
a sound legal justification for doing it.¶ One point in favor of drone strikes is that they are weakening Al Qaeda,
the Taliban and affiliated groups, and hence protecting lives, American and other. Also, there
don’t seem to be better means of doing so.¶ Points against drone strikes are the cost in civilian lives, the alienation
of parts of the Islamic world, potential harm to the authority of international law, and the possibility that drone use will spread
around the world, generating more conflict and harming long-term U.S. interests.¶ These are all valid points, and I respect that
reasonable people could be convinced by either set. My
own reasoning turns on four arguments.¶ First, states
have a primary responsibility for the protection of their own citizens. If drone strikes are the
best way to remove an all-too-real threat to American lives, then that is an especially weighty consideration.¶
Second, I doubt that ending drone strikes would substantially reduce anti-Americanism in the
Islamic world or put a dent in radical recruitment.¶ Third, the U.S can do a lot to moderate
some harms caused by its use of drones. By being clearer about what it’s doing and offering detailed legal
justification, the U.S. could mitigate damage to international law and the threat of uncontrolled proliferation.¶ Finally, there is
evidence that drone strikes are less harmful to civilians than other means of reaching Al Qaeda
and affiliates in remote, lawless regions (for example, large-scale military operations). And that is what is
required of states in armed conflict, legally and ethically: where civilian casualties cannot be avoided, they
must be minimized.¶
Drones are better then alternatives and very precise – no significant Civilian
Causulties
LA Times 12 – Los Angeles Times Newspaper (“Obama’s Counter-terrorism Advisor Defends
Drone Strikes”, Los Angeles Times, 4/30/12, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/30/world/lafg-brennan-drones-20120501) //EO
WASHINGTON — President Obama's top counter-terrorism advisor Monday defended using
drones to launch missiles against militants in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, saying the growing
use of armed unmanned aircraft had saved American lives and caused few civilian casualties.¶
The comments by John Brennan, coming shortly before the first anniversary of the U.S. Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, marks the first time
a senior White House official has spoken at length in public about widely reported but officially secret drone operations. ¶ ¶ The administration's reliance
on drones has stirred deep controversy at home and abroad. On Sunday, unmanned aircraft killed at least three suspected militants in the tribal region
of northern Pakistan; such strikes have led to angry accusations that U.S. drones have killed or injured hundreds of civilians over three years.¶ But in a
speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank,
Brennan said civilian casualties from
U.S. drones were "exceedingly rare" and were rigorously investigated.¶ "We take it seriously,"
he said. "We go back and review our actions."¶ Brennan said drones have reduced risks for
U.S. pilots and crews, limited accidental casualties and helped prevent American ground
troops from being forced into broader conflicts.¶ "Large, intrusive military deployments risk
playing into Al Qaeda's strategy of trying to draw us into long, costly wars that drain us
financially, inflame anti-American resentment and inspire the next generation of terrorists,"
he said.¶ In his speech, Brennan sought to answer critics who for years have demanded
information on how U.S. officials decide whom they can kill in drone attacks and how often
civilians have been accidentally killed.¶ "We only authorize a particular operation against a
specific individual if we have a high degree of confidence that the individual being targeted is
indeed the terrorist we are pursuing," Brennan said. "This is a very high bar."¶ An individual
must be deemed by U.S. intelligence to be actively involved in a plot to attack American
forces, facilities or other targets, Brennan said. The intelligence is vetted at high levels, and the
decision to fire a missile is made with "extraordinary care and thoughtfulness," he said.¶
Brennan did not outline who takes part in the discussions or what standards of evidence are
sufficient to launch a missile.¶
Drones are the only option in effective counter-terrorism and alternatives would
be counterproductive
CNN 13 – World renouned news source (“Obama: U.S. Will Keep Deploying Drones -- when
they are Only Option”, CNN, 5/23/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/politics/obama-terrorspeech) //EO
Washington (CNN) -- Drone strikes are a necessary evil, but one that must be used with more temperance as the
United States' security situation evolves, President Barack Obama said Thursday.¶ America prefers to capture,
interrogate and prosecute terrorists, but there are times when this isn't possible, Obama said in a
speech at the National Defense University in Washington. Terrorists intentionally hide in hard-to-reach locales
and putting boots on the ground is often out of the question, he said.¶ Thus, when the United
States is faced with a threat from terrorists in a country where the government has only
tenuous or no influence, drones strikes are the only option -- and they're legal because America "is at war
with al Qaeda, the Taliban and their associated forces," Obama said.¶ He added, however, "To say a military tactic is
legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same
progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline
to constrain that power -- or risk abusing it."¶ Increased oversight is important, but not easy, Obama said. While he has
considered a special court or independent oversight board, those options are problematic, so he plans to talk with Congress to
determine how best to handle the deployment of drones, he said.¶ The nation's image was a theme throughout the speech, as
Obama emphasized some actions in recent years -- drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay key among them -- risk creating more
threats. The nature of threats against the United States have changed since he took office -- they've become more localized -- and
so, too, must efforts to combat them, he said.¶ "From our use of drones to the detention of terror suspects, the decisions that we
are making now will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children," he said.¶ Today, al Qaeda operatives in
Pakistan and Afghanistan worry more about protecting their own skin than attacking America, he said, but the threat is more diffuse,
extending into places such as Yemen, Iraq, Somalia and North Africa. And al Qaeda's ideology helped fuel attacks like the ones at the
Boston Marathon and U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.¶ Obama said the use of lethal force extends to U.S. citizens as well.¶
On Wednesday, his administration disclosed for the first time that four Americans had been killed in counterterrorist drone strikes
overseas, including one person who was targeted by the United States.¶ "When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against
America -- and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to
capture him before he carries out a plot -- his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an
innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team," Obama said.¶ To
stop terrorists from gaining a foothold,
drones will be deployed, Obama said, but only when there is an imminent threat; no hope of
capturing the targeted terrorist; "near certainty" that civilians won't be harmed; and "there
are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat." Never will a strike be punitive,
he said.¶ Those who die as collateral damage "will haunt us for as long as we live," the president said, but he emphasized that the
targeted individuals aim to exact indiscriminate violence, "and
the death toll from their acts of terrorism
against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes ."¶ It's not always
feasible to send in Special Forces, as in the Osama bin Laden raid, to stamp out terrorism, and even if it were,
the introduction of troops could mean more deaths on both sides, Obama said.¶ "The result would be
more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations and an inevitable mission creep in support of
such raids that could easily escalate into new wars," he said.¶ The American public is split on where and how drones should be used,
according to a March poll by Gallup.¶ Although 65% of respondents said drones should be used against suspected terrorists abroad,
only 41% said drones should be used against American citizens who are suspected terrorists in foreign countries. ¶
Credibility Adv.
UQ – Soft Power Low
US credibility is low now
Hadas, 2012, Analyst for Reuters
(Edward, 11/19/2012, “Soft power is priceless – and scarce”, Reuters,
http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2012/11/19/soft-power-is-priceless-and-scarce/)
Soft power is proving to be priceless – and scarce. The United States may not have lost much power to
coerce but its power to co-opt has weakened. Despite the claims of a new study, no country has taken its place. The
soft power vacuum makes the world a little more risky.¶ The ancient Romans, the early Muslims, Napoleon’s
France and the Britain of industry and empire were all long gone by 1990 when political scientist Joseph Nye introduced the term
soft power to describe America’s ability to influence foreign countries without military or commercial pressure. All these powers had
a certain something – a persuasive worldview, a sense of accomplishment, a feeling of destiny – that made the available brute force
more palatable and powerful.¶ Nye
thought the appeal of the U.S. way of life would help set the global
and regional political-economic agendas. For a while, he was at least partly right. The
Washington consensus guided economic policy in many developing countries, U.S.-style
secular democracy was considered the global standard and many admired the American vision
of big finance and small government.¶ The United States is still emulated, but is also now increasingly distrusted.
Whether the reason is some nebulous domestic loss of spirit, foolish foreign policy, the financial crisis or something else, the
country is probably held in lower esteem internationally than at any time since the isolationist
and Depression-struck 1930s.¶ The Olympics and pop-music exports make the UK the world leader in soft power, or so
claims Monocle magazine. That’s pretty silly. While Britain may have shed its image as a charming has-been suffering from class
conflict and empire loss, it is hardly a global model. Japan is a more plausible candidate; it seemed to be doing something profoundly
right in the 1980s. But few now would use that stolid economy, isolationist culture and shrinking population as a model.¶ The
soft
power leadership spot is open. China, with its strong economy and great hopes, is the natural
candidate to fill it. For now, though, Beijing is no shining example. Pollution, corruption, cultural confusion and unresponsive
government mean China suffers from what is better described as soft weakness.
Links – Gen Cred
Cuba’s presence on the terror list undermines US international credibility
Stephens 11 – Executive director at Center for Democracies in the Americas, panelist at
George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, Cuban policy expert for the
Washington Office on Latin America (Sarah Stephens, “A Call for Cuba’s Removal from the List of
State Sponsers of Terrorism”, Center for International policy/Latin American Working Group,
12/1/11, http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf)// EO
My second point is that this really bad U.S. policy. When we treat Cuba as a state that sponsors
¶ terror –when it is not –we waste our tax dollars and undermine the credibility of our efforts
¶ against genuine threats.¶ We also alarm and anger our allies. They object to the reach of
our sanctions across borders. ¶ This forms the basis of their complaints against the U.S.
embargo when the U.N. condemns our ¶ sanctions every year. All of this is likely to get worse,
not better, as our enforcement of anti-terror and anti-moneylaundering laws become more
aggressive. ¶ Already, these enforcement trends are causing foreign banks with interests in the U.S. to terminate their banking relationships
¶
with Cuba. They are deciding that the risk of doing ¶ business with Cuba that could trip them up with U.S. authorities is greater than the benefit of ¶
maintaining those relationships. They are cutting ties as a matter of business discretion, not U.S. ¶ law.¶ Britain’s ambassador to Cuba told me in a
meeting last June that the reach of our sanctions make ¶ it impossible for many small and medium sized businesses in the U.K. to make legal
investments ¶ or legal transactions because of the risks involved. That’s a loss for Cuba and a loss for British ¶ firms and workers.¶ This is serious business,
but it sometimes reveals itself in farcical ways. Clif Burns at the Export ¶ Law Blog reported recently on this incident. An obscure office inside the S.E.C.
wrote the ¶ United Parcel Service and challenged the fact that they delivered packages to Cuba because it is ¶ subject to economic sanctions and export
controls. UPS wrote them back explaining they were ¶ allowed to deliver packages that contained lawful deliveries. The complexity and reach of our ¶
laws, at times, exceeds the ability of our enforcement agencies to apply them rationally.¶ Cuba’s
presence on the state
sponsors’ list is emblematic of our political dilemma. The ¶ definition of a self-licking ice
cream cone is this: it is a process or thing that offers few benefits ¶ and exists primarily to
justify its own existence. Cuba’s designation is perfect for the hardliners ¶ in Congress to block
otherwise rational policy changes or initiatives – because, after all, U.S. law ¶ says we’d be
helping a state sponsor of terror. Let me give you three examples.¶ Congressman David Rivera
uses it to justify trying to stop Repsol and Cuba from drilling ¶ together for oil. He said his
legislation to block drilling was necessary to – and I quote – “ensure that Florida taxpayers are
not made to pay for an environmental disaster caused by a terrorist ¶ regime.”¶ When
Senators Menendez and Rubio sought to stop President Obama from increasing the ¶ number of
airports allowed to serve the Cuban market, their legislation sought to prevent the ¶ expansion
of direct flights to state sponsors of terrorism.
Links – Soft Power
Listing Cuba as a threat hampers US soft power in Latin America
Lopez 11 – Lecturer and PhD Candidate at the Korbel School of Int’l Studies at U of Denver
[Arturo, “A Call for Cuba's Removal from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism”
http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf]
“ Finally, the presence of Cuba on the States sponsors of terrorism list is harmful to United
States soft power in Cuba and Latin America. It is a confirmation of the revolutionary
narrative aboutAmerican hostility and the use of double standards against Cuba . This
gratuitous inclusion of Cuba on a list that it doesn’t belong diminishes any other legitimate
claim the United States can have about Cuba, its international behavior and its human rights
record. It also blocks possibilities of a more comprehensive cooperation between Cuba and the hemispheric security mechanism,
particularly the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism. The ransacking of Cuban funds in the United
States as result of unjust legal suits fits perfectly on the narrative in which several Cuban
generations has been educated after the 1959 revolution. Cuba appears again as the object of
American disrespect for its sovereignty, as a victim of double standards and aggression, as a
David in resistance and defiance. The inclusion of Cuba on the list appears as a symbol of revengeful confrontation. This
is the environment in which Cuban and Latin American radical nationalism flourishes and restrictions to civil rights are justified under
emergency arguments. Cuba’s
presence in the list of terrorist countries definitely has negative
effects in Cuban processes of economic reform, political liberalization and openness. William F. Buckley wrote:
“The principal responsibility of the thinking man is to make distinctions,” “Physics primers remind us that ‘all of the progress of
mankind to date has resulted from the making of careful measurement’”. The careful measures of Cuba’s involvement in terrorist
activities are clear. For more than twenty years, the US Government has not recorded a single case, one single case, of a terrorist
action sponsored by the Cuban government. Secretary Clinton, who is well known for her methodic approach to politics, has the
opportunity to leave a positive legacy in this area. It is time to adopt clear criteria for terrorist list designation. Cuba’s presence on
the list must end.”
Cuba isn’t a threat and its inclusion on the list decimates US soft power
Levy 11 – Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Affairs at
the University of Denver, received the Leonard Marks Essay Award of the American Academy of
Diplomacy, masters degree from Columbia in International Affairs. (Arturo Lopez-Levy, “A Call
for Cuba’s Removal from the List of State Sponsers of Terrorism”, Center for International
policy/Latin American Working Group, 12/1/11,
http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf)// EO
Why including Cuba on the terrorist list makes it difficult to have a realistic and rational policy ¶
towards Cuba?¶ Washington’s persistent discourse that characterizes Cuba as a terrorist threat
hinders the ¶ development of a strategic vision for addressing the challenges Cuba presents to
US foreign ¶ policy today. Post-Cold War Cuba is not a military threat to American lives or US
interests at ¶ home or abroad. A one party nationalist regime, centered in an economic transition to a mixed ¶ economy
might not square well with Washington’s preferences but it is compatible with a US ¶ led world or regional
order. The island is a country in transition that is carrying out a market ¶ oriented economic
reform without giving up its one party system. This situation calls for ¶ policies completely different from
those required for dealing with a terrorist menace. ¶ In the case of a country such as Iran or Syria, with links to
terrorist groups such as Hezbollah ¶ and Hamas, there should be a policy of containment and limitations of some type of contacts. ¶
Copying with a Cuba in the middle of an economic transition to a mixed economy, American ¶ optimal policy is one of engagement.
It is worth remembering that when Presidential Candidate ¶ Barack Obama in 2008 advocated for a policy of engagement and
dialogue with adversaries, his ¶ proposal was predicated not on sympathy for those governments but on the mutual ¶ opportunities
for gains and the promotion of the American national interests. Even within the ¶ twisted logic that guides the Helms Burton Act,
it
is perverse how Washington is treating Cuba’s ¶ non state sector as an enemy of the United
States, limiting its chances for trade and interaction ¶ with the American economy. ¶ Moreover, in
the context of the Americas, Cuba is located at a strategic place for American ¶ maritime borders. Bogus allegations should
not be used to block a comprehensive cooperation ¶ between the American and Cuban
governments to prevent any terrorism or organized crime ¶ related activities against either of
the two countries. The United States has significant ¶ differences with the political systems of many countries but the
primary goal of any ¶ government is the protection of its citizens, the homeland and its strategic and economic ¶ interests. It is
irresponsible that the United States is declaring Cuba a terrorist country not ¶ following any
security rationale but kowtowing to the pressures of partisan parochial interests. 5¶ Finally, the presence of Cuba
on the States sponsors of terrorism list is harmful to United States ¶ soft power in Cuba and
Latin America. It is a confirmation of the revolutionary narrative about ¶ American hostility
and the use of double standards against Cuba. This gratuitous inclusion of ¶ Cuba on a list that
it doesn’t belong diminishes any other legitimate claim the United States can¶ have about
Cuba, its international behavior and its human rights record. It also blocks ¶ possibilities of a
more comprehensive cooperation between Cuba and the hemispheric security¶ mechanism,
particularly the Inter-American Committee against Terrorismi¶ . ¶ The ransacking of Cuban funds in the
United States as result of unjust legal suits fits perfectly ¶ on the narrative in which several Cuban generations has been educated
after the 1959 ¶ revolution.
Cuba appears again as the object of American disrespect for its
sovereignty, as a ¶ victim of double standards and aggression, as a David in resistance and
defiance. The inclusion ¶ of Cuba on the list appears as a symbol of revengeful confrontation.
This is the environment in ¶ which Cuban and Latin American radical nationalism flourishes and restrictions to civil rights are ¶
justified under emergency arguments. Cuba’s presence in the list of terrorist countries ¶ definitely has negative effects in Cuban
processes of economic reform, political liberalization ¶ and openness. ¶ William F. Buckley wrote: “The principal responsibility of the
thinking man is to make ¶ distinctions,” “Physics primers remind us that ‘all of the progress of mankind to date has ¶ resulted from
the making of careful measurement’”. The careful measures of Cuba’s ¶ involvement in terrorist activities are clear. For
more
than twenty years, the US Government ¶ has not recorded a single case, one single case, of a
terrorist action sponsored by the Cuban ¶ government. Secretary Clinton, who is well known for her methodic
approach to politics, has ¶ the opportunity to leave a positive legacy in this area. It is time to adopt clear criteria for ¶ terrorist list
designation. Cuba’s
presence on the list must end.
Links – UN Perception
Cuba on the Terror Watch List Hurts US Image in the UN
Stephens 2011. Sarah Stephens is Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas and
its Freedom to Travel Campaign “A Call for Cuba's Removal from the List of State Sponsors of
Terrorism” http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Cuba/lawg_cip_dec_2011.pdf “A Call for
Cuba's Removal from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism”
“My second point is that this really bad U.S. policy. When we treat Cuba as a state that sponsors terror –when it is not –we waste
our tax dollars and undermine the credibility of our efforts against genuine threats.
We also alarm and anger our
allies. They object to the reach of our sanctions across borders. This forms the basis of their
complaints against the U.S. embargo when the U.N. condemns our sanctions every year . All
of this is likely to get worse, not better, as our enforcement of anti-terror and anti-money
laundering laws become more aggressive. Already, these enforcement trends are causing
foreign banks with interests in the U.S. to terminate their banking relationships with Cuba.
They are deciding that the risk of doing business with Cuba that could trip them up with U.S.
authorities is greater than the benefit of maintaining those relationships. They are cutting ties
as a matter of business discretion, not U.S. law.”
Links - Hypocrisy
The US blaming Cuba for terror is hypocritical – all credible evidence proves the
US is sponsoring terror is Cuba
Ludlam, 2012 – senior lecturer in politics at the University of Sheffield, member of the Cuba
Research Forum, and The Society for Latin American Studies, and honorary member of the
Faculty of the Third Age, University of Havana
(Steve Ludlam, “Regime Change and Human Rights: A Perspective on the Cuba Polemic,” Bulletin
of Latin American Research, 2/6/2012, wiley]
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 states that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person’ (United Nations, 1948). This right has been repeatedly denied to Cubans by terrorists, mostly
trained in the United States, often by US agencies, and operated from US territory (Bolender,
2010). In 2006, the Cuban Foreign Ministry summarised the consequences as follows: The many different forms of terrorism used
against Cuba include: the destruction of economically important and civilian facilities; attacks on coastal facilities, merchant ships
and fishing vessels; attempts on Cuban facilities, equipment and personnel abroad, including diplomatic bodies, airline offices and
planes; attempts at assassinating main government leaders; the introduction of agricultural and animal germs Regime Change and
Human Rights 115 and plagues and strains of human diseases, among others. More
than 3,478 men, women and
children have lost their lives and another 2,099 Cubans have been physically handicapped for
life as a result of at least 681 proven and well-documented acts of terrorism and aggression
against Cuba. It is worth mentioning that these actions have not stopped over time: 68 took place in the 1990s
and another 39 in the last five years. (Republic of Cuba, 2006: Part 1, Chapter 3) The origin and tolerance of these attacks has been
summarised in a paper co-authored by a former US Head of Interests ( de facto ambassador) in Cuba: Many Cuban exile
terrorists got their start by working with the CIA on acts of violence against targets in Cuba. But
as the CIA closed its base in Miami and de-emphasized such tactics, its former ‘operatives,’ among them Orlando Bosch and Luis
Posada Carriles, turned freelance. Declassified
CIA and FBI documents leave no doubt that Bosch and Posada
were then involved in acts of terrorism, such as the bombing of a Cubana airliner in 1976 with the loss of 73
innocent lives. Bosch was also reported to have been behind the 1976 assassination in Washington of former Chilean diplomat
Orlando Letelier and his American assistant, Ronnie Moffitt. And Posada acknowledged to The New York Times that he was
responsible for the 1997 bombings
of tourist hotels in Havana, resulting in the death of an Italian tourist and the
wounding of several other people. These were but the tip of the iceberg. There were many other exile terrorists, many
other assassinations and other acts of violence against Cuban-Americans who disagreed with the exile hardliners, in addition to
intense efforts to intimidate those advocating dialoguewithCubaand/orthosewhoinsistedontravelingtotheisland. Most
disturbingly, almost none of these terrorist acts, even those in the U.S., have been punished by U.S.
authorities. On the contrary, there has been a clear pattern of tolerance. (Smith, Harrison and Adams,
2006: 1)
Soft Power Mod – Now Key
Now is key – without the plan multilateralism and US soft power in the western
hemisphere will be destroyed
White 2013
[Robert White, “A chance to remake U.S.-Cuba relations”, The International Herald Tribune, March 9 2013,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T17795872053&
format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T17795872057&cisb=22_T17795872056&treeMax=true&treeWid
th=0&csi=8357&docNo=3]
For most of its history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. This
legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, the postwar treaty that pledged the United States
to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for
a half-century, U.S. policies toward its
southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and
missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela - who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was
perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades -
offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of
prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Chávez used the U.S. embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the
United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba's current president.
The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean
overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.¶ An end to the Cuba embargo would send a
powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social
change throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin
America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy's creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping
Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships
and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶
Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent
revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan
for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from communism. He
pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy's focus on Latin
America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of interAmerican relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and ''la noche
mas larga'' - ''the longest night'' - began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic
governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were
curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-communism.¶
During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic
alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use
official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military's responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and
forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran
revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped
expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We Americans armed them, trained them and
covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department
asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that U.S. policy makers had refused
to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, ''we pursued a
policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception
of the national interest.''¶ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a
series of profound political, social and
economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them,
longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington
and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American
and Caribbean States - which excludes the United States and Canada - as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba
and excluded the United States, Chávez said that ''the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet
alone without the hegemony of empire.''¶ Chávez was masterful at manipulating America's antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a
rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly
in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama
administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After
President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America's leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of
Brazil, urged Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the
chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the
failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed
to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United
States and turning Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro's announcement
that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the
three Cuban-American members of the Senate - Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas - are rising stars in the Republican
Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert
Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been
weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a
small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The re-election of
President Obama, and the death of Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel
Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin
American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of
American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶
Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to
Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its
reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.¶ If,
however, our present policy
paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States
versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with
individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of
a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a
historical footnote.
SP Solves Terror
Soft Power key to stop terrorism
Chertoff, 2008, Writer for the Harvard International Review
(Michael, 6/22/2008, “Preventing terrorism: a case for soft power.”, The Harvard International Review,
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Harvard-International-Review/184710761.html)
Consequently, it is imperative that over the next decade, the United States, in concert with its friends and allies, retain every option
at its disposal and apply every available tool or strategy where appropriate against this threat. Certainly that includes the effective
use of military options when necessary as well as other tools that may reduce the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks. Most
importantly, however, in
order to prevent the growth of terrorist groups themselves, the United
States must pursue strategies to win nations and peoples to its side. Use of such "soft power"--a
term coined by Harvard University professor Joseph Nye--can help the United States and its allies reduce the
appeal of terrorist organizations and deter individuals from joining them.¶ A Multi-Faceted Fight
against Terrorists¶ The use of military action in recent years against the terrorists has included deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan
and combating al Qaeda in Iraq. During this time,
the United States and its allies have also acted to frustrate
three key enablers of terrorism--communications, finance, and travel. They continue to intercept and
disrupt communications and actively work to freeze the assets of groups and individuals that support terrorism. When it comes to
travel, the United States employs three key strategies: collecting limited bits of commercial information in order to identify travelers
warranting closer scrutiny, screening incoming individuals through biometrics, and building a system of secure travel documentation
through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.¶ Taken together, these measures constitute a layered approach: deterring
terrorists from entering the United States, capturing or killing them before they embark on
the journey, and stopping them during their travel.¶ Unfortunately, such measures, while
necessary, will likely leave us short of a lasting victory in the safeguarding of the country. To prevail,
we must not only work hard to prevent terrorists from attacking, but we must also expend equal effort to prevent
people from becoming terrorists in the first place. That requires addressing the two major factors that are
driving the growth of terrorism in the 21st century: the continued presence of failed political and economic
systems in parts of the developing world, and the emergence of violent Islamic extremism as
the most visible competing ideology for those mired in that dismal status quo.¶ The True Nature of
the Fight¶ Given these two factors, the course ahead should be clear. The United States must fight not only the
extremists, but the ideology of their extremism. It must stand firmly against malignant ideas which can only cause
further poverty, degradation, and hopelessness by turning the clock back centuries. It must offer the alternative ideals
of liberty and democracy, ideals which have brought more progress to more people over the
past few centuries than in all the prior centuries combined. In other words, as during the Cold War,
the situation must be seen as a war against an ideology, a contest of ideas, and a battle for the
allegiance of men and women around the world. It is not a struggle that we began; it is, however, one that we must win. The
security of the United States and the world depends on it.¶ The Soft Power Solution. To stand on the
sidelines would be to allow this extremist ideology to win by default. So what must we do to counter it? When proposing an
alternative to radical ideology, the use of soft power becomes key. Part of this effort must involve
providing immediate humanitarian aid to those who need it the most.¶ This is not an unfamiliar task for the United States; the
nation has been doing this throughout its history. In December 2004, for example, the United States responded to the series of
catastrophic tsunamis that killed more than 225,000 people in Indonesia, India, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. The government acted
immediately by committing US$350 million in relief funding to meet a wide array of human needs, ranging from food and water and
health and sanitation assistance to education and cash-for-work programs. It sent 16,000 sailors and airmen to evacuate the injured
and deliver aid to hundreds of thousands of people in the affected countries. According to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana
University, US private tsunami donations--cash and in-kind--exceeded US$1.8 billion.¶ The overwhelming majority of casualties
occurred in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. While Indonesia is a democracy, the forces of Islamist extremism
have been trying to gain a foothold, making it an important ideological battleground.
Empirics prove—soft power needed to defeat terrorism
The Associated Press 2007
(11/26/2007, “Defense chief: Fight terrorism with ‘soft power’”, The Associated Press,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21980961/ns/us_news-security/t/defense-chief-fight-terrorism-softpower/#.UerxeY2yBa4)
Defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians contributing more in
communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
Monday.¶ Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a
wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more
involvement by university and other private experts.¶ “We
must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel
of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen,” he said in a speech at
Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. “We must also focus our energies on the other elements of
national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.Ӧ He said the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia,
have shown that long-term success requires more than U.S. military power.¶ “Based on my experience
serving seven presidents, as a former director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening
our capacity to use ‘soft’ power and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power,” Gates said.¶ Many have argued that the Bush
administration missed opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus
on economic development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals.¶ ‘Success
... a function of shaping behavior’ ¶ The lesson, Gates said, is that nontraditional conflict — against insurgents, guerrillas and
terrorists — will be the mainstay of battlefields for years to come, requiring more than military power.¶ “Success
will be less
a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior — of friends, adversaries and,
most importantly, the people in between,” Gates told his audience of students, faculty and local residents.¶ He spoke as part of
Kansas State’s Landon lecture series, named for former Kansas governor Alfred Landon. Last November the lecture was delivered by
the man Gates replaced at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, who made a similar argument in favor of strengthening the role of the
State Department and other federal agencies and linking their efforts more closely with those of the Pentagon.¶ Iran on the minds of
protesters ¶ Outside the lecture hall a small group of anti-war protesters wore T-shirts reading “Don’t Iraq Iran.”¶ Margaret
Pendleton, a sophomore public relations major, urged diplomacy, making her point with a sign showing the faces of Iranian
children.¶
U.S. Soft Power key to stop terrorism—hard power fails
UN News Center, 2010
(9/10/10, “UN official calls on nations to ramp up action against terrorism”, UN News Center,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35855#.Uew2Bo2yBa4)
A senior United Nations official today urged nations to double their efforts to implement all four pillars
of the world body’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, emphasizing the need to shore up ‘soft’
power measures to combat terrorism.¶ The strategy, adopted unanimously by the General Assembly in 2006,
focuses on four key areas of action: tackling the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism;
preventing and combating terrorism; building State capacity and bolstering the role of the UN;
and ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law against the backdrop of the fight
against terrorism.¶ Jean-Paul Laborde, who chairs the UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF), made his
appeal as the General Assembly is set begin its biennial review of the strategy tomorrow.¶ Although progress in putting the strategy
into practice has been made, the “pace has not moved as fast as many had hoped for,” he noted.¶ “We
all know that hard
power measures alone have failed to stop terrorist attacks or at least have not succeeded,” Mr.
Laborde told reporters in New York this afternoon.¶ If just 10 per cent of the investment in hard power was
put towards soft power measures, such as fostering education and promoting respect for human rights, “we really
can reduce these terrorist threats,” he stressed.¶ Mr. Laborde, who also serves as Director of the Counter-Terrorism
Implementation Task Force Office, underlined that it is “imperative” that using force to fight terrorism is combined with preventive
measures to curb the potential recruitment and training of terrorists, as well as terrorist attacks before they happen.¶ A three-day
CTITF-backed event along the sidelines of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review also kicked off today, with some 150
participants taking part in discussions on global efforts to fight terrorism.
Terror Impacts - Extinction
Nuclear terrorism results in all-out nuclear war and extinction
Ayson, 10 – Director, Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University of Wellington (Robert,
“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism,
Volume 33, Issue 7, pp. 571-593, 6/21]
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate
nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist
attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to
a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess
them. In this context, today's and tomorrow's terrorist groups might assume the place allotted
during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were
seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third
parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about
nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem.¶ It may require a considerable amount of
imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could
lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear
attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could
plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the
most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too
responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily
threaten them as well.¶ Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For
example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile
material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks, 40 and if for some
reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that
nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the
observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would
be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable
and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of
the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear
material came from.” 41¶ Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete
surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible
(or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out
Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as
well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea,
perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia
and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo?¶ In particular, if
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington's
relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume
the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United
States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if
they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these
developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a
nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even
limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that
might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager
of the attack?¶ Washington's early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might
also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or
China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist
nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country's armed forces,
including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when
careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or
China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow,
although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating
response.
Nuclear terrorism causes extinction – most probable scenario
Creamer, 11 – political organizer and strategist, Strategic Consulting Group (Robert, “Post-Bin
Laden, It's Time to End the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism for Good,” Huffington Post, 5/12,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/post-bin-laden---it-is-ti_b_860954.html)//SY
Worse, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have vowed to obtain and actually use
nuclear weapons.¶ The status quo -- the balance of terror -- that for six decades prevented a
nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia is every day being made more unstable by the
increasing numbers of nuclear players -- and by the potential entry of non-state actors. Far
from being deterred by the chaos and human suffering that would ensue from nuclear war -actors like al Qaeda actively seek precisely that kind of cataclysm .¶ The more nuclear
weapons that exist in the world -- and more importantly the more weapons-grade fissile
material that can be obtained to build a nuclear weapon -- the more likely it is that one, or
many more, will actually be used.¶ In the 1980's the specter of a "Nuclear Winter" helped spur
the movement for nuclear arms reduction between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Studies showed
that smoke caused by fires set off by nuclear explosions in cities and industrial sites would rise
to the stratosphere and envelope the world.¶ The ash would absorb energy from the sun so
that the earth's surface would get cold, dry and dark. Plants would die. Much of our food
supply would disappear. Much of the world's surface would reach winter temperatures in the
summer.
Nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat to humanity – most effective means of
destruction
Gallucci, 12 – President, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Robert, “Preventing
Nuclear Terrorism,” Huffington Post, 4/5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robertgallucci/nuclear-terrorism_b_1406712.html)//SY
This is unfortunate, but not surprising. Even though recent presidents and presidential
candidates have all said that nuclear terrorism poses the greatest threat to the national
security, people inside and outside of government do not act as though they believe it. And
until they do, real progress toward securing and then eliminating stocks of fissile material will
not be made and, in fact, we will continue to add to those stocks.¶ We should all be concerned
that perhaps during one morning rush hour in a major American city, a nuclear weapon of
crude and improvised design will be detonated. Such a device's yield will be far smaller than
that of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but still tens of thousands will die
instantly from the blast, burns and radiation. Over the following month, thousands more will
succumb to burns, injuries, or the effects of radiation. The blast area will be uninhabitable for
months or longer.¶ This is not the stuff of pulp fiction or sensational television; it is a credible
scenario.¶ There is clear evidence that terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, are interested
in acquiring and using nuclear weapons. They seek to inflict maximum damage with an
economy of means; nothing can accomplish this end more effectively and with more certainty
than a nuclear weapon.¶ We have no reason to believe that a traditional defense against this
threat will be effective. We cannot expect to prevent access to our territory, and we cannot
expect to deter a terrorist who values our death more than his life.
The danger is not only to the United States or Western Europe, as terror attacks in Moscow,
Mumbai and Bali demonstrate. Any nation that faces a threat from terrorism should be
concerned.
Nuclear weapons are easy to use – makes nuclear terrorism most likely scenario
for mass destruction
TRAC, 13 – Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (“Nuclear Terrorism,”
http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/nuclear-terrorism)//SY
With the advent of WMD, the basic understanding of terrorism as a phenomenon has moved
from a political and psychological level to a real threat of mass destruction and disruption. The
news of terrorists searching for nuclear weapons in Russia and Afghanistan coupled the threat
emanating from groups such as Al Qaeda and other groups has brought this threat to the
forefront of analyst’s attention. However, while there is a clear consensus about an increased
threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism in the post 9/11 period, there are also others who
have tagged this threat as ‘overrated nightmare’ since using and acquiring nuclear capability
may well be beyond the purview of a terrorist group. At a global level, any form of nuclear
terrorism could have a devastating effect when it leads to war or armed conflict between two
countries or among a group of nuclear powers. The impact of a nuclear-terrorist act would be
far greater when it would be misconstrued as an attack by the enemy country.¶ TYPES OF
GROUPS LIKELY TO TRY WMDS¶ Scholars have broadly categorized non state terrorists as actors
who can resort to a nuclear strike against a national state. For example, Charles Ferguson and W
C Potter have clubbed them into four groups:¶ Apocalyptic groups (e.g Aum Shinrikyo),¶ PoliticoReligious Terrorist groups (e.g, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba)¶ Nationalist and
Separatists groups (e.g. LTTE, Baloch Rebel group), and¶ Single issue Terrorist (e.g eco-terrorist).
¶ OBTAINING WMDS¶ There are two imaginable ways for terrorists to get nuclear explosives.
They could build a radiological bomb or an improvised nuclear device or they could seek to
steal or buy a miniaturized nuclear weapon. Before dealing with the kind of threat our civil
society could face in a nuclear catastrophe triggered by terrorists, it would be useful to discuss
and understand various types and effects of nuclear weapon and material used in it, on the
human environment. A terrorist group or an individual ‘lone-wolf’ terrorist would not face
serious technical barriers in creating a basic or a crude nuclear device. With some degree of
technical sophistication it would be easier to build weapons which could maximize the
damage on any given environment, both civil and military.
Terror Impact – US Lashout
US would retaliate
Record 03 – researcher for the strategic studies institute (Jeffery Record, BOUNDING THE
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM, Army, December 03,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub207.pdf) TA
Can the United States deter, via implicit or explicit threat of preventive war, rogue state acquisition of
nuclear weapons? The¶ 29¶ question is difficult to answer because the declared U.S. policy of
“anticipatory self-defense” is so new and because the deterrent effects, if any, on other rogue
states of the U.S. preventive war against Iraq are not yet evident. There are certainly those who believed
that Operation IRAQI FREEDOM would send a chilling message to Teheran, Pyongyang, and other rogue state capitals. The
prominent neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, for example, believed that removing Saddam Hussein would provide
“a clear demonstration to other tyrants that to acquire WMD is a losing proposition. Not
only do they not purchase
you immunity [from U.S. attack] (as in classical deterrence). . . they purchase you
extinction.”78 Preventive war, though a substitute for deterrence, would actually reinforce deterrence.
AT: Nuc Terror Not Possible
Nuke terror likely – escalates due to false sense of security
Dahl 7/1 – Specialist Correspondent (Frederik, “Governments warn about nuclear terrorism
threat,” 7/1/13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/us-nuclear-securityidUSBRE96010E20130701)//SJF
(Reuters) - More action is needed to prevent militants acquiring plutonium or highly-enriched
uranium that could be used in bombs, governments agreed at a meeting on nuclear security in
Vienna on Monday, without deciding on any concrete steps.¶ A declaration adopted by more
than 120 states at the meeting said "substantial progress" had been made in recent years to
improve nuclear security globally, but it was not enough.¶ Analysts say radical groups could
theoretically build a crude but deadly nuclear bomb if they had the money, technical
knowledge and materials needed.¶ Ministers remained "concerned about the threat of nuclear
and radiological terrorism ... More needs to be done to further strengthen nuclear security
worldwide", the statement said.¶ The document "encouraged" states to take various measures
such as minimizing the use of highly-enriched uranium, but some diplomats said they would
have preferred firmer commitments.¶ Many countries regard nuclear security as a sensitive
political issue that should be handled primarily by national authorities. This was reflected in the
statement's language.¶ Still, Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), which hosted the conference, said the agreement was "very robust" and
represented a major step forward.¶ RADICAL GROUPS' "NUCLEAR AMBITIONS"¶ Amano earlier
warned the IAEA-hosted conference against a "false sense of security" over the danger of
nuclear terrorism.¶ Holding up a small lead container that was used to try to traffic highly
enriched uranium in Moldova two years ago, the U.N. nuclear chief said it showed a "worrying
level of knowledge on the part of the smugglers".¶ "This case ended well," he said, referring to
the fact that the material was seized and arrests were made. But he added: "We cannot be sure
if such cases are just the tip of the iceberg."¶ Obtaining weapons-grade fissile material - highly
enriched uranium or plutonium - poses the biggest challenge for militant groups, so it must be
kept secure both at civilian and military facilities, experts say.¶ An apple-sized amount of
plutonium in a nuclear device and detonated in a highly populated area could instantly kill or
wound hundreds of thousands of people , according to the Nuclear Security Governance
Experts Group (NSGEG) lobby group.¶ But experts say a so-called "dirty bomb" is a more likely
threat than a nuclear bomb. In a dirty bomb, conventional explosives are used to disperse
radiation from a radioactive source, which can be found in hospitals or other places that are
generally not very well protected.¶ More than a hundred incidents of thefts and other
unauthorized activities involving nuclear and radioactive material are reported to the IAEA
every year, Amano said.¶ "Some material goes missing and is never found," he said.¶ U.S. Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz said al Qaeda was still likely to be trying to obtain nuclear material for a
weapon.¶ "Despite the strides we have made in dismantling core al Qaeda we should expect its
adherents ... to continue trying to achieve their nuclear ambitions," he said.
Terror has a high probability
Ravilious 05 – writer for the guardian (Kate Ravilious, What a way to go, The Guardian, April 13
2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/14/research.science2) TA
Professor Paul Wilkinson is chairman of the advisory board for the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence
at the University of St Andrews:¶ "Today's society is more vulnerable to terrorism because it is easier for
a malevolent group to get hold of the necessary materials, technology and expertise to make
weapons of mass destruction. The most likely cause of large scale, mass-casualty terrorism right now is from a chemical
or biological weapon. The large-scale release of something like anthrax, the smallpox virus, or the plague, would have a huge effect,
and modern communications would quickly make it become a trans-national problem.¶ "In
an open society, where we
value freedoms of movement, we can't guar-antee stopping an attack, and there is a very high
probability that a major attack will occur somewhere in the world, within our lifetim≤es."¶
Chances of a major terrorist attack in the next 70 years: Very high
Prez Power Add-on
Executive removal shores up presidential powers
Levy 4/10 - Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Affairs
at the University of Denver, received the Leonard Marks Essay Award of the American Academy
of Diplomacy, masters degree from Columbia in International Affairs. (Arturo Lopez-Levy,
“Getting Ready for Post Castro Cuba”, The National Interest, 4/10/13,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/getting-ready-post-castro-cuba-8316?page=1) //EO
The opportunity to redesign U.S. policy towards Cuba will not last forever. A failure to respond
to Raúl Castro’s overtures for negotiation with Washington would be a strategic mistake. Unfortunately, the 1996 HelmsBurton law codified the embargo as a legislative act, limiting presidential authority to terminate sanctions in response to changing
conditions. But President Obama
still can make a significant difference in bilateral relations if he
decided to lead on the issue by using his prerogative as a diplomat-in-chief.¶ The president can
begin by taking Cuba off the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. It would be a
positive gesture towards Havana and a signal to the world that he meant what he said when
he advertised a new diplomatic approach towards U.S. adversaries. It will not be a concession
to Cuba, since Havana has not been connected to any terrorist actions for at least the last
twenty years. The misuse of the list to serve the agenda of the pro-embargo lobby undermines its credibility
against real terrorist threats.¶ Taking Cuba off the State Department terror-sponsor list also will
provide a framework to negotiate the Alan Gross affair. Gross, a USAID subcontractor, is serving a fifteen-year
prison sentence in Havana. He was arrested by Cuban authorities because of his covert mission providing satellite access to internet
to several Cuban civil-society groups, circumventing government controls. The Cuban government admits that Gross was not a spy
but found that his actions could make Cuba vulnerable to cyber warfare by the United States. Gross’s activities are provided for
under section 109 of the Helms-Burton law, a program designed to promote regime change on the island.¶ Negotiation on the Gross
case is held up because of the false premise that he is a hostage of a terror-sponsoring nation. But the
situation might
become manageable if the two countries negotiate an agreement that could be face-saving for
both governments. Such an agreement could be the first step in a course of engagement and
people-to-people contact. If the United States is to have some influence during the transition
to a post-Castro Cuba, it must start this process today.
Strong presidency is essential to avert nuclear annihilation
Paul 98 - Professor at University of Connecticut School of Law [Joel R., “The Geopolitical
Constitution: Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements,” California Law Review, Jul, 86
Calif. L. Rev. 671, LN]¶
[Whatever the complexity of causes that led to the Cold War - ideology, economics, power politics, Stalin's personality, Soviet
intrigue, or American ineptitude ¶ - the tension of the bipolar order seemed real, immutable, and threatening to the U.S. public. 135
The broad consensus of U.S. leadership held that the ¶ immediacy
of the nuclear threat, the need for covert operations
and intelligence gathering, and the ¶ complexity of U.S. relations with both democracies and
dictatorships made it impractical to engage in ¶ congressional debate and oversight of foreign policymaking. 136 The eighteenth-century Constitution did not permit a rapid ¶ response to twentieth-century foreign aggression. The
reality of transcontinental ballistic missiles collapsed the real time ¶ for decision-making to a matter of minutes. Faced with the
apparent choice between the risk of nuclear annihilation¶ or amending the constitutional process for policy-making, the preference
for a powerful executive was clear. 137 Early in the Cold War ¶ one skeptic of executive power, C.C. Rossiter, acknowledged that
[“]the steady increase in executive power is unquestionably a ¶ cause for worry, but so, too, is the steady increase in the magnitude
and complexity of the problems the president has been called upon by the American people to ¶ solve in their behalf. They still have
more to fear from the ravages of depression, rebellion, and especially atomic war than they do from whatever decisive actions ¶ may
issue from the White House in an attempt to put any such future crises to rout....It is not too much to say that the destiny of this
nation in the ¶ Atomic Age will rest in the capacity of the Presidency as an institution of constitutional dictatorship.[”]
Summit of the Americas Adv.
Links
Plan key to reviving the Summit of the Americas
Strain 4/27 – Professor of neuroscience at Baton Rouge University, PhD from
Iowa State (George M. Strain, “Letter: Take Cuba Off Terror List”, The Advocate,
4/27/13, http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/5748256-123/letter-take-cubaoff-terror) // EO
Most Americans wouldn’t be able to determine what Cuba, Iran, Syria and Sudan have in
common.¶ They are, in fact, the four countries that are on the State Department’s list of “state sponsors of
terrorism.” Not only does this designation of Cuba on the terrorist list affect our overall
relationship with our island neighbor, it also affects our relationship with the Western
Hemisphere, and the rest of the world, who do not see Cuba as a terrorist threat .¶ At the
Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, that took place on April 14-15, the rest of the Americas
made it quite clear that without a change in our relationship with Cuba, another summit
would not happen. If we are truly sincere about improving our relationship with Cuba, as President
Barack Obama has maintained, the right place to start would be re-examining the designation of Cuba
on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.¶ Cuba has been on this list since March 1, 1982. According to a 2005 Congressional
Research Services report, at the time of Cuba’s addition to the list “numerous U.S. government reports and statements under the
Reagan Administration alleged Cuba’s ties to international terrorism and its support for terrorist groups in Latin America.” ¶ Any
rationale for keeping Cuba on this list has long-since disappeared, especially with Cuba now
playing a principal role in facilitating and hosting the Colombia-FARC peace negotiations being held in
Havana. If you take a look at the State Department’s website, the few paragraphs that detail Cuba’s
designation on the list actually read more like reasons to take Cuba off.
The summit is key to the global economy
Inter-American Development Bank ‘12
[Inter-American Development Bank, “First CEO Summit of the Americas calls for greater economic cooperation among Western
Hemisphere nations”, Apr 14 2012, http://www.iadb.org/en/news/news-releases/2012-04-14/ceo-summit-of-theamericas,9952.html]
CARTAGENA, Colombia – The First CEO Summit
of the Americas wrapped up today with calls for greater
cooperation among Western Hemisphere nations on matters ranging from trade and investment to
education, science and technology and security, in order to boost prosperity from Canada to Chile.¶ At the end of the conference,
held ahead of the 6th Summit of the Americas, Presidents Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Barack
Obama of the United States participated in a roundtable discussion in front of an audience that included more than 700 top
executives from many of the Western Hemisphere’s leading companies.¶ After praising the economic and social progress achieved
by countries such as Brazil and Colombia over the past decade, Obama said there were many fields where countries in this
hemisphere could collaborate fruitfully. “We’ve never felt more excited about prospects of working as equal partners with our
brothers and sisters in Latin America and the Caribbean,” he added.¶ Rousseff, whose nation recently overtook the United Kingdom
as the world’s sixth biggest economy, also spoke in favor of closer cooperation, but stressed that alliances should be based on
equality among allies. She called for greater integration of supply chains among countries in the Americas, most of which have to
catch up to Asian and Eastern European countries that are well connected with global production systems. “We need to view this
region as an area where you cannot have protectionism,” Rousseff added.¶ Santos, who called for closer coordination of economic
policies to avoid the “export of crises,” proposed that the
countries of the Americas should arrive with a common
position to the G20 meeting due to be held in Mexico in June to discuss possible joint actions to head off another
global recession.¶ The three heads of state also agreed on the importance of improving education and job training in their
countries in order to improve people’s employment prospects. “If we were to ask our people what is their greatest concern, I am
sure that the answer would be jobs,” Santos added.¶ Science and technology research and development was also seen as a fertile
ground for collaboration in the Americas. Obama noted Brazil’s leadership in biofuels, adding that both countries should intensify
their cooperation on developing clean energies.¶ The conversation among the American, Brazilian and Colombian presidents capped
the two-day event organized by Colombia’s private sector with the endorsement of the Colombian government and technical
support from the Inter-American Development Bank. During the CEO summit
participants discussed
opportunities to speed up economic growth and reduce poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean
through public-private partnerships and deeper regional integration.¶ In his opening speech on Friday, Santos called on the private
sector to contribute to inclusive economic growth. “Without business people prosperity will not come to the peoples of this
continent,” Santos said. “But business also has a tremendous responsibility. You must do everything possible to improve social
conditions. Fighting poverty is a great business proposition for everyone.Ӧ In his presentation for the CEO summit, IDB President
Luis Alberto Moreno said that the Americas could double the value of their commerce within a decade if governments and the
private sector undertake key investments. “This would have a tremendous impact on job creation,” Moreno said, “especially for the
millions of young people who enter the job force each year.”’¶ Moreno called on companies and governments to ensure that
benefits of digital connectivity not only benefit wealthy consumers in large cities, but that they also push out into isolated rural areas
and down into the base of the income pyramid. “We need to bet on the future, and take infrastructure, products and services not
only to the growing urban middle class, but also to isolated populations, to families that aspire to greater social mobility,” Moreno
said.¶ Moreno announced two new IDB initiatives that seek to leverage greater connectivity among public and private sectors to
help solve two important development challenges: youth unemployment and access to finance.¶ The IDB and the Multilateral
Investment Fund (MIF) are teaming up with the International Youth Foundation and the region’s biggest employers, including
Walmart and McDonald’s operator Arcos Dorados, to launch an alliance to train as many as 1 million youth for their first jobs over
the next decade. They also announced the provision of up to $55 million in financing for institutions to develop new lending models
to improve access to credit for women entrepreneurs in the region.¶ Throughout the CEO summit heads of state and distinguished
cultural, diplomatic and business figures shared their vision for accelerating connectivity and development across the hemisphere.¶
The president of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, urged Latin American countries to advance free trade
agreements, eliminate trade barriers and embrace open markets. “Trade is one of the key factors for
progress,” he said, “and humanity has known for a thousand years that trade generates benefits for all.”¶ Colombian singer Shakira
exhorted the business community to deepen its commitment to corporate social responsibility. “It would be fantastic to see the
business leaders of Latin America embrace philanthropic capitalism in the way that executives in other countries have, for example
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who asks multimillionaires to promise that they will pledge half of their fortunes to help the poor,” she
said.¶ Shakira, who started her own educational foundation as a teenager, added that she is waiting to see a Latin American version
of philanthropic capitalism, and that she would like to see business people in the region “encourage each other and compete to see
who writes the biggest checks.”¶ On the eve of the CEO summit, the IDB and Shakira’s ALAS Foundation presented their joint awards
for excellence in early childhood development. During the ceremony, the artist invited Moreno and leading business people to join a
“movement for early childhood” to promote programs to serve children from birth to the time they enter school, prioritizing
investments for the 35 million children in the region who currently lack access to adequate nutrition, health care and education
services.
Growth solves conflict
Marquardt, 5 (Michael J., Professor of Human Resource Development and International Affairs, George Washington
University, Globalization: The Pathway to Prosperity, Freedom and Peace,” Human Resource Development International, March
2005, Volume 8, Number 1, pg. 127-129, Taylor and Francis, Tashma)
Perhaps the
greatest value of globalization is its potential for creating a world of peace . Economic growth
has been identified as one of the strongest forces that turn people away from conflict and wars
among groups, tribes, and nations. Global companies strongly discourage governments from warring against countries in
which they have investments. Focusing on economic growth encourages cooperation and living in
relative peace (Marquardt, 2001, 2002).
Solvency
AT: XOs fail/not normal means
Obama has the authority to delist Cuba at any time
Thale and Anderson 13 – [Geoff Thale and Mavis Anderson, “Cuba, the Terrorism Report,
and the Terrorist List”, Washington Office on Latin America, 5/24/13,
http:/www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_the_terrorism_report_and_the_terrorist_list //CHB]
Recent news reports indicated that the U.S. State Department would miss the deadline for its annual terrorism report. And they noted
that the State Department did not plan to use the report to remove Cuba from the list of State
Sponsors of Terrorism. (Earlier this year, reports had hinted that the State Department was considering removing Cuba from the list.)¶
Does this mean that the administration is no longer thinking about delisting Cuba? Should those of us
who support a more rational relationship between the United States and Cuba throw up our hands in despair? No and no. The President
can remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism at any time. In fact, few observers expected
Cuba to be removed from the terrorist list this spring anyway, given the major legislative battles on immigration and gun violence prevention.¶ That
does not mean that sensible people should not object when the report is published and Cuba is again listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. ¶
Importantly, the
State Department will have many opportunities over the course of the year to
take the sensible step of removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. In fact, it
is because of this possibility that opponents of change are working so hard to convince the
administration to sit on its hands. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio Sires recently sent a letter to Secretary of
State John Kerry asking him to keep Cuba on the list. ¶ Although some aspects of U.S. policy toward Cuba—in particular,
the embargo and the travel ban—can only be changed by Congress, there are a number of meaningful
actions that the Obama administration could take without waiting for Congress. Removing
Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism is one of the most significant of these. ¶ Delisting
Cuba would be an important step in the right direction: it would send a message to the Cuban government that the United States wants to improve the
relationship. It could help set the stage for the kind of dialogue and negotiations that are needed to address many issues of common concern, including
securing the release of USAID contractor Alan Gross, who is currently serving a 15-year sentence in Cuba. Delisting Cuba would also send an important
and long-awaited message to Latin American governments from across the political spectrum. Both publicly and privately, Latin American governments
have made it clear to the Obama administration that U.S. policy toward Cuba needs to change. ¶ If the administration needed an additional reason to
take Cuba off the terrorist list, Cuba’s constructive role in the Colombian peace talks provides an excellent justification for doing the right thing. Peace
talks between the Colombian government (a stalwart U.S. ally and the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. assistance) and the FARC (the
Colombian guerilla organization, which the United States has designated a terrorist organization) are currently taking place in Havana. The talks are
making real progress.¶ Cuba’s role in the peace talks illustrates just how much times have changed. In the 1980s, Cuba supported guerilla groups who
were trying to overthrow conservative governments, and the Reagan administration put Cuba on the terrorist list in 1982. But in 1992, Fidel Castro
announced that Cuba’s support for armed revolution was a thing of the past, and now Cuba is encouraging one of the few remaining guerilla groups in
the region to make peace with a conservative government. The Obama administration should acknowledge this profound shift by taking Cuba off the
terrorist list.
The Obama Administration can delist Cuba at will
Webber 09 – [Alan M. Webber, “Introduction:The Case for Changing U.S. Policy “, the Center
for Democracy In the Americas, “9 Ways for US to talk to Cuba and for Cuba to talk to US”,
collection of essays published 2009, http:/www.scribd.com/doc/10323598/9-Ways-for-US-toTalk-to-Cuba-and-for-Cuba-to-Talk-to-US //CHB]
This collection of essays identifies immediate steps that the Obama administration can
promote to build confidence and cooperation between the two countries, including: remove
Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism; cooperate on military affairs and law enforcement; loosen terms for
agricultural sales to Cuba by American producers; exchange knowledge in health, science, weather forecasting, and civil preparedness; re-open avenues
for people-to-people contacts; increase the monetary amount Americans can send family in Cuba; advance cultural and academic exchanges for greater
mutual understanding; and develop a new diplomacy without preconditions.
AT: Congress Key
Obama does not need Congress approval
Bender 13 – Veteran Reporter for the Globes Washington Bureau (Bryan Bender, Talk grows of
taking Cuba off terror list, The Boston Globe, Feb. 21 2013,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/21/cuba-label-terrorist-state-longerjustified-some-officials-say/CmVFXsVC4M1R1WbHE8lb0H/story.html) TA
But Obama could remove Cuba from the terrorist list without congressional approval.
“Clearly [the Cubans] are agitated by that and they have been for some time,” said McGovern,
who said the issue of the terror designation was raised by the Cubans this week. “That is
something the administration could do on its own and they should.”
Congress is not required
WOLA 13 – known for it’s in research of US-Latin American Relations (Washington Office on
Latin America, Three Harbingers of Change in U.S. Cuba Policy, WOLA, March 28 2013,
http://www.wola.org/commentary/three_harbingers_of_change_in_us_cuba_policy) TA
U.S. Cuba policy has been codified into law, and ending the U.S. embargo or the travel ban requires congressional action. But
there are many steps that the President and the Secretary of State can take on their own
(both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have previously expressed and
demonstrated their commitment to changing U.S. policy toward Cuba). Removing Cuba from
the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism is one of the most significant changes that do not
require congressional approval. It would reflect the reality that Cuba is not a sponsor of terrorist groups, thus helping to
improve relations, and it would deprive congressional hardliners of a powerful tool in their efforts to harden U.S. policy toward
Cuba. At a time when Cuba is playing a key role in the Colombia peace talks (which are making real progress), taking Cuba off the list
of State Sponsors of Terrorism would also send a message throughout the Western Hemisphere that the United States is serious
about improving its relationship with Latin America.
No Congressional Approval needed
Chow 13 – writer for the Latin American Working Group (Emily Chow, Obama Wants Progress on
Cuba? Remove Cuba from the Terrorist List!, Latin America Working Group, February 6 2013,
http://www.lawg.org/action-center/lawg-blog/69-general/1138-obama-wants-progress-oncuba-remove-cuba-from-the-terrorist-list) TA
There is still much more that the President could do without congressional approval. We want
to focus on one important action that would open the door to other advances. Through his
executive authority, the President has the power to remove Cuba from the State
Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. On March 1st, 1982, Cuba was added to this list because "at the
time, numerous U.S. government reports and statements under the Reagan Administration alleged Cuba's ties to international
terrorism and its support for terrorist groups in Latin America," says a 2005 Congressional Research Services report. If you visit the
State Department's website, the few paragraphs that detail Cuba's designation on the list actually read like reasons to now remove
Cuba from the list. Now is the time for the United States to show its sincerity in pursuing a path toward improved relations with
Cuba. It's long overdue that we join the rest of the world in recognizing that Cuba is not a threat, rather a potential partner in the
western hemisphere. And if not a partner, then at least not an adversary. Taking Cuba off this progress-stifling list would also send a
"Johnny come lately" signal to our Latin American neighbors, who are challenging the United States on Cuba policy, both publically
and privately. If the United States wants to improve relationships with Western Hemisphere countries in one big move, this is the
way to do it
AT: On Case DAs
AT: Cuba a Threat
Prefer our studies - The best evidence available proves Cuba is not a threat and
supports the US war on terror
Mariño, 2012 - Senior Researcher and Professor at the Center for the Study of the United
States at the University of Havana, Cuba
(Soraya M. Castro Marino, Fifty Years of Revolution: Perspectives on Cuba, the United States, and
the World, University Press of Florida, 2012, muse]
When the Bush administration began its “crusade against terrorism” after September 11, 2001, it resurrected a classification of
states developed in the 1980s that labeled some as alleged “sponsors of international terrorism.” Cuba was placed on the list in
1982, seemingly because of its support for groups such as Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress and the Farabundo Martí
National Liberation Front in El Salvador.70 Today
Cuba is one of the four countries remaining in the group. The
last report issued by the Bush administration listed charges that distorted Cuba’s actual behavior or had no
bearing on the claim that it was a state sponsor of terrorism. These included assertions that “Cuba
remained opposed to U.S. counterterrorism policy, and actively and publicly condemned many associated U.S. policies and actions. .
. . The Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of ETA. . . . It maintained close relationships with other state sponsors
of terrorism such as Iran and Syria. . . . The Cuban government continued to permit more than 70 U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba
and refused almost all U.S. requests for their return.”71 However, harboring
fugitives who are not terrorists does
not even meet the definitional threshold for state sponsorship of terrorism.72 Moreover, without an
extradition treaty, both countries must rely on the goodwill of the other to achieve the return of fugitives. As Anya Landau and
Wayne Smith observe, “the best way to approach this particular problem would be to begin to negotiate a new extradition
treaty.”73 Counterevidence about Cuba’s behavior fell on deaf ears in the Bush administration. For example, the U.S. government
was aware that ETA members in Cuba “came there originally as the result of an agreement between the Felipe Gonzales
Government in Spain and Havana.” Even conservative Spanish governments afterward made no effort to extradite any of the
Basques living in Cuba.74 While
the assertion that Cuba condemned many U.S. actions in its war on
terrorism is true, the vast majority of countries in the world also had been critical of the United
States. However, the implication of the charge is that Cuba opposed efforts to fight terrorism and stop
groups such as al-Qaeda, which is false. The Cuban government officially condemned the
terrorist attacks on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. It then offered to provide the United States
with all the medical and humanitarian aid it could muster, and to permit U.S. aircraft to use Cuban
airspace.75 But the Cuban government refused to give carte blanche to the United States and argued that the
campaign against terrorism should be waged through the United Nations. By October 2001, Cuba
had ratified twelve UN resolutions against terrorism that had stemmed from the September 11 attacks.76 That
month, in the wake of a terrorist anthrax attack on the U.S. Congress, Cuba offered to deliver 100 million tablets of Cipro to the U.S.
government. It then offered low-cost, Cuban-made devices to detect and eliminate anthrax. These
measures of support
were either dismissed or unacknowledged by U.S. officials.77
Cuba no longer supports any act of terrorism—no need to be on the list
Winters, 2013
(Mark Winters, Cuba for the Misinformed. Facts from the Forbidden Island, pg. 110,
There is no mention, of course, that the US government has aided that “force” by cutting off all shipments of arms to Fulgencio
Batista’s forces on March 13, 1958—a blockade that kept weapons from the Batista government that the “force” overthrew. This
happened after the US government has provided Batista with arms and money for years, until it realized he was going to lose to the
revolutionary movement. Cuba
was first designated by the US State Department as a country
that has “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism” in 1982 , due to
its support for the communist rebels in Africa and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. Even so, the State Department
Country Report on Terrorism in 2008 states that Cuba “no longer actively supports
armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world” and “The United States
has no evidence of terrorist-related money laundering or terrorist financing activities
in Cuba.” A year later, the 2009 report stated, “There was no evidence of direct financial support for terrorist organizations by
Cuba in 2009”.
AT: North Korea Weapons Shipment
Weapons found on North Korea ship too old to be a threat against the United
States
Adams, 7/17/13, Reporter for Reuters
(David, “Analysis: Ship seizure shows dire straits of Cuban military rather than threat”, Reuters News,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/us-panama-northkorea-cuba-weapons-analysidUSBRE96H01G20130718)
The seizure in Panama of a North Korean cargo ship carrying aging Cuban military hardware in
need of repair is more a sign of hard times in Havana than of any sinister military threat,
analysts say.¶ Although Cuba may have violated United Nations sanctions barring military trade with North
Korea, the infraction could result in little more than a slap on the wrist as the Soviet-era weaponry
appears unrelated to international concern over proliferation of nuclear weapons by Pyongyang. ¶ "Based
on what we know, the military impact seems to be negligible," said Philip Peters, a Cuba
expert at the Virginia-based Cuban Research Center. "This material has nothing to do with the
international community's core concern about North Korea, which is nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles."¶ The shipment included two anti-aircraft missile batteries, nine disassembled
missiles, two MiG-21 aircraft, and 15 MiG engines, all Soviet-era military weaponry built in the
middle of the last century.¶ The Cuban military was "using weapons and equipment of staggeringly old
vintage" and the Pentagon had long since written off the island as a military threat, said Hal Klepak,
professor of History and Strategy at the Royal Military College of Canada and author of a book on the
Cuban military.¶ At the same time, Cuba's military doctrine was designed to deter any attack, and its
defensive capacity was badly in need of an upgrade, he said.¶ "Nothing Cuba has, as the Pentagon has
repeatedly made clear in its own analyses, constitutes a threat to the U.S. or other neighbors,
but if Cuba cannot keep any limited air-defense capability in being at all, then it cannot convince anyone
that its conquest would not be easy to achieve," he said.¶ In a 1998 report, the Pentagon concluded that
the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1991 had seriously eroded the size and power of Cuba's military, which
was left posing "a negligible threat to the U.S. or surrounding countries."¶ The report said Cuba's army
could no longer mount "effective operations" due to mothballed equipment, and it's air force had fewer
than two dozen operation MiGs.¶ Despite the possible violation of U.N. sanctions, the Obama
administration has reacted cautiously to the Panama seizure.¶ It went ahead on Wednesday with
scheduled migration talks with Cuba, and rather than lash out at Havana, U.S. officials have taken a waitand-see approach, saying they plan to speak to the Cubans about the incident once all the facts are
known.¶ "HOPELESSLY OUT OF DATE"¶ Cuba says the "obsolete" weapons were being sent back to North
Korea for repair and has insisted it remains committed to international law and nuclear disarmament. ¶
Klepak termed the MiG-21, which first flew in the 1950s, "hopelessly out of date," as were the antiaircraft radar systems reportedly on the ship.¶ "Cuba cannot afford to buy anything newer and does not
have repair facilities of its own for such needs. Thus if it is not to scrap, for example, the aircraft entirely,
it must repair and potentially update them in some areas," he said. ¶ Cuba's dire financial situation
most likely led it to turn to North Korea, allowing Havana to enter a barter arrangement,
perhaps for sugar, Klepak added, noting that the North Koreans had repaired similar weaponry
in the past in exchange for food.¶
AT: State Dept Intel
There is No Clear Agreement within the State Department that Cuba Supports
Terrorism
Adams and Jones, 2012 Brigadier General John Adams is a former officer in the US army
currently pursuing a degree of political science at the University of Arizona. David Jones is a
correspondent with The Hill
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/217483-is-cuba-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-lets-get-realstate-department
“Is Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism? Let’s get real, State Department”
After the Cold War ended, many in the intelligence community concluded that Cuba was no
longer a national security threat to the United States. The 2008 U.S. State Country Report on
Terrorism stated that Cuba “no longer actively supports armed struggles in Latin America and
other parts of the world.” The same report further states, “The United States has no evidence
of terrorist-related money laundering or terrorist financing activities in Cuba.” The 2009 report
stated: “There was no evidence of direct financial support for terrorist organizations by Cuba
in 2009.” The 2010 State Department report stated: “The Cuban government and official
media publicly condemned acts of terrorism by al-Qa’ida and affiliates.” Does keeping Cuba on the list
make any sense, more than two decades after the events cited in the original listing? So why does the State Department retain Cuba
on the list? The rationale seems to be that “the Cuban government continued to provide safe haven to several terrorists,” according
to the 2008 Country Report on Terrorism. Let’s look at the evidence. First, the State Department alleges that Cuba offers safe haven
to terrorists from Spain. The
fact is that a handful of former members of the Basque Homeland and
Freedom organization — more commonly known by the acronym ETA for the Spanish
translation — live in Cuba in accordance with a decades-old bilateral agreement with the
Spanish government. Spain has stated public appreciation for Cuba’s willingness to host these
individuals and has maintained that this enhances their ability to deal more effectively with
the group. The Spanish police even maintain a small presence in Cuba. Second, the State Department
alleges that members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) Columbian
rebel groups maintain a presence in Cuba. The
fact is, Cuba hasn’t supported ELN for more than 20 years.
Moreover, the Colombian government publicly stated that Cuba has played a useful role in
facilitating peace talks with the rebels, according to a 2007 Congressional Research Service
report. The 2010 State Department report itself echoes the 2009 report, that “there was no
evidence of direct financial or ongoing material support” for FARC. In addition to the lack of
evidence to support the listing, there are convincing reasons why Cuba should be removed:
Cuban presence on the list damages U.S. credibility with almost all of our key allies and puts
us at odds with every country in Latin America, who view the listing as capricious and
politically motivated. It impedes our ability to work with allies to facilitate contacts with
rebel groups, such as FARC, that are aimed at reconciliation.
AT: T – Economic Engagement
W/M – Plan = EE
We are econ engagement
Sullivan P. Mark 05- USFG Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division (“Cuba and the State Sponsors
of Terrorism List”, CRS Report for Congress, May 12, 2005,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47003.pdf)//Modermatt
The “state sponsors of terrorism list” is mandated under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (P.L. 9672; 50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)), under which the Secretary of State makes a determination when a country “has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism.” Cuba has remained on the list since 1982, and at present there are five other countries
on the list — Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. Under
various provisions of law, certain trade
benefits, most foreign aid, support in the international financial institutions, and other
benefits are restricted or denied to countries named as state sponsors of international
terrorism. Under the authority of Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, validated licenses
are required for exports of virtually all items to countries on the terrorism list, except items specially allowed by
public law, such as informational materials, humanitarian assistance, and food and medicine. Being listed as a sponsor of
international terrorism also restricts bilateral assistance in annual foreign assistance
appropriations acts, as required most recently in Section 527 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447, Division D). Section 502 of the Trade Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-618; 19 U.S.C. 2462) makes a country ineligible for the Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP) if it is on the Section 6(j) terrorism list. Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C.
2371) also prohibits assistance authorized under the act to the government of a country that
“has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Likewise, Section 40 of the
Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 96-629; 22 U.S.C. 2780) prohibits the export or other provision of
munitions to a country if the government “has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism.”1 Cuba’s retention on the terrorism list has received more attention in recent years in light of
increased support for legislative initiatives to lift some U.S. economic sanctions under the current embargo. Should U.S.
sanctions be removed, a variety of trade and aid restrictions would nonetheless remain in
place because of Cuba’s retention on the terrorism list. At this juncture, however, sanctions have not been
removed and Cuba remains subject to a comprehensive U.S. trade and financial embargo (pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy
Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961). In
addition to the terrorism list sanctions imposed by the
Export Administration Act, Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629; 22 U.S.C. 2781) prohibits the
sale or export of defense articles and defense services if the President determines and
certifies to Congress, by May 15 of each year, that the country “is not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism
efforts.” This list has been issued annually since 1997, and currently includes Cuba, as well as Iran, Libya, North Korean, and Syria.2
Counter Interp
Economic engagement includes the Export Administration Aff. The plan would
remove Cuba from the list of terror sponsors
Peed, Editor of Duke Law Journal, 2005 [Matthew, BLACKLISTING AS FOREIGN POLICY: THE POLITICS AND LAW OF
LISTING TERROR STATES, DUKE LAW JOURNAL Vol. 54:1321,
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=dlj&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D40%26q%3Dcuba%2Bterrorism%2Blist%26hl%3Den%2
6as_sdt%3D0%2C44#search=%22cuba%20terrorism%20list%22]
The list of state sponsors of terrorism is primarily a product of the law of economic sanctions.
During World War I, the U.S. first began to use economics sanctions systematically as a tool of foreign policy through the Trading
with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TEA).16 The Act allowed the president to declare a national emergency with respect to a country and
comprehensively regulate financial transactions with that country. Eventually these powers were extended through the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA),17 which allows the president to promulgate sanctions toward
individual countries after first declaring a state of national emergency with respect to that country.18 In addition to this
“emergency” power, Congress also delegated to the president the power to regulate all foreign commerce as a tool of foreign policy
through the Export Control Act of 1949 (ECA).19 This act was intended as a temporary measure that would give the president
substantial powers to deal with the post–World War II security threat.20 The periodic renewals of the Act, beginning with the
Export Administration Act (EAA) of 1969,21 constitute the statutory basis of most economic
sanctions.22 During each lapse between renewals, the president has continued sanctions by declaring national emergencies
under the IEEPA.23 When the EAA came up for renewal after the terrorist atrocities of the 1970s, an
amendment was added that would become the main statutory authority for the list of state
sponsors .24 Section 6(j) of the act requires a license for the export of militarily relevant goods or
technology to any country that the secretary of state determines has “repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism.”25 The section also requires the secretary to list the
designated countries in the Federal Register26 and submit a report to Congress before the
designation is rescinded.27 For a country to be removed, the secretary must certify that there has been a “fundamental change in
the leadership and policies of the government of the country concerned,” i.e., that a coup had occurred, or that the government has
not provided any support for terrorism “in the preceding six months.”28 Although the statutory basis of the terrorism list is not
limited to Section 6(j),
most of the economic consequences of being included on the list relate to a
fabric of export restrictions that reference Section 6(j) .29 For example, under the International Security and
Development Cooperation Act of 1985, the president has almost unlimited discretion to restrict or ban imports from countries on
the Section 6(j) list.30 Similarly, specific statutes have been enacted against certain countries on the list, creating presidential
authority for severe sanctions.31 Though these statutes do not depend upon the Section 6(j) list for their authority, they typically do
not expire until the country is removed from that list.32 In addition to the trade restrictions applied by the 1979 amendments to the
EAA, two other acts require the State Department to identify terrorist states as means of applying economic pressure to countries
based on their support for terrorism. First, the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA)33 prohibits U.S. agricultural aid, Peace Corps
involvement, and Export-Import Bank assistance to countries identified by the secretary of state as state sponsors of terrorism.34
These provisions were enacted in 1976 when human rights became more of a policy focus in U.S. foreign aid programs.35 Second,
the Arms Export Control Act restricts the sale of munitions to countries identified as supporting terrorism.36 This act plays
prominently in the multifarious sanctions concerning nuclear nonproliferation and state sponsors of terrorism.37 Although all three
of these statutes presuppose a terrorsponsoring designation process and require that those designations be published in the Federal
Register, none require the creation of an
official list of state sponsors of terrorism, nor do they define either
sponsorship or terrorism.38 Rather, these provisions were added in a 1987 statute requiring the secretary of
state to provide Congress with an annual report on worldwide terrorism that includes the list
of states designated as state sponsors.39 The statute provides a definition of terrorism to guide the report:
“premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine
agents.”40 In the
report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, the secretary of state must identify those
countries which will be subject to the Section 6(j) and other sanctions , and thus compose the
official terrorism list. Unfailingly, the annual release of this report creates a regular media splash despite the unchanging
nature of the list itself.41
T – Terror List Key to Economic Engagement
The US is precluded from economically engaging any countries on the terror list.
Our interp is a prereq to including Cuba in the topic
Roehrig, 2009 – Professor in National Security Affairs and the Director of the Asia-Pacific
Studies Group at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island
(Terence Roehrig, “North Korea and the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism List,” Pacific Focus,
Volume 24, issue 1, 3/25/2009, wiley]
The State Sponsors of Terrorism List is part of an annual report to Congress mandated in Title 22
Chapter 38, Secti on 2656f (a) of the US Code. By law, the Secretary of State must provide the report to Congress by 30 April
each year. Publication of the report began in 1981 when the CIA compiled and released the first version entitled Patterns of
International Terrorism: 1980 . In 1986, the State Department assume d responsibility, however the CIA continued to contribute its
an alysis, and renamed the report Patterns of Global Terrorism . In 2004, the annual report was retitled Country Reports on
Terrorism and contains an overview of th e year’s trends in terrorism, information on terrorist or ganizations, terrorist ef forts to
acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD), major de velopments in counterterrorism, and a list of states that sponsor terror ism
along with the reasons for being on the list. 26 According to State Department guidelines, the state sponsors of terrorism are
identified as follows: “countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeated ly provided support for acts of international
terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: se ction 6( j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export C
ontrol Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.” 27 The report provides a detailed description of why the various states
are included on th e list. According to one study, “US Administration officials maintain that the practice of designating and reporting
on the activities of the state sponsors terrorism list and concomitant sanctions policy has contributed significantly to a reduction in
the overt – and apparently overall – activity level of states supporting terrorism in the past decade.” For
those who find
themselves on the State Sponsors list, there are two types of costs that apply: economic and
political. The economic costs are in the form of a numb er of types of sanctions. As noted in the 2007 Country Reports on
Terrorism, the sanctions include: 1. A ban on arms-related exports and sales. 2. Controls over
exports of dual-use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly
enhance the terrorist-list country’s military capability or ability to support terrorism. 3. Prohibitions on economic
assistance. 4. Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including: Requiring
the USA to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions;
Exception from the jurisdictional immunity in US courts of state sponsor countries, and all
former state sponsor countries (with the exception of Iraq), with respect to claims for money damages for personal
injury or death caused by certain acts of terrorism, torture, or extrajudicial killing, or the provision of material support or resources
for such acts;
Denying companies and individuals tax cred its for income earned in terrorist-list countries;
Denial of duty-free treatment of goods exported to the USA; Authority to prohibit any US
citizen from engaging in a financial transaction with a terrorist list government without a Treasury
Department license; and Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $US100,00 0 with companies in which a state sponsor
government owns or controls a significant interest. 29 Finally, PL 104–132 requires the prohibition of arms sales to any state listed as
not fully cooperating with US anti-terrorism measures, another list North Korea is on. 30 In
addition to the economic
penalties, inclusion on the State Sponsors list also carries certain political costs. States
included on the list are part of a nefarious group responsible for supporting or carrying out heinous acts of violence,
universally condemned by the global community. Presence on the State Sponsors list groups a state with others
who have be en castigated for their behavior and badly damage a state’s reputation within the global community and within global
institutions. The
“name and shame” cost of the State Sponsors list can also discourage other states and
non-state actors from dealing with the target state and can discourage foreign investors from
doing business there.
We are the core of the topic – The Terror list precludes economic engagement.
Removing it is thus economic engagement
Hufbauer et al 1 - Reginald Jones Senior Fellow [Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott (Sr. Fellow), and
Barbara Oegg (Research Assistant), Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Briefs Using Sanctions to Fight Terrorism,
November 2001, http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/print.cfm?ResearchId=79&doc=pub]
In the 1970s and 1980s, US counterterrorism policy primarily focused on state sponsorship of international terrorism. State sponsors
of terrorism are countries designated by the Secretary of State under Section 6 (j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 as
countries that have “repeatedly provided state support for acts of international terrorism.” Currently the list of state sponsors
includes seven countries: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. ¶ Naming
a country on the terrorism
list triggers a series of economic sanctions under different US laws. These sanctions include:¶
restrictions on export licenses (or a general ban) for dual-use items or critical technology (under the Export
Administration Act of 1979) ¶ ban on sales or licenses for items on the US Munitions Control List (under the Arms Export Control Act)
¶
ban on US foreign assistance including Export-Import Bank credits and guarantees (under the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) ¶ authorization for the president to restrict or ban imports of goods and
services from designated terrorist countries (under the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985) ¶
prohibition of financial transactions by US persons with the governments of designated terrorist countries (under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) ¶ requirement that US representatives at international financial institutions
vote against loans or other financial assistance to that country (under the International Financial Institutions Act of 1977) ¶
ineligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP, under the Trade Act of 1974). Although naming a country as a state
sponsor does not automatically trigger a total economic embargo, with the exception of Syria, all
countries currently
designated as state sponsors—Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and North Korea—are also subject to
comprehensive trade and financial sanctions imposed by the executive branch under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In some of these cases—particularly Cuba and North Korea—US sanctions policy is less determined by
concerns over terrorism than broad foreign policy conflicts.
Plan = EE – Contextual Ev
Plan is economic engagement – Contextual evidence proves
Cuba Study Group 13 – Nonpartisan, nonprofit made up of business and professional individuals who want to help
facilitate a peaceful transition in Cuba leading to a free and open society
[Cuba Study Group, Restoring Executive Authority over U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, February 2013,
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=45d8f827-174c-4d43-aa2f-ef7794831032]
4. Additional Steps the U.S. President Can Take to Promote Change in Cuba¶ While we wait for Congress to act, the
Executive
Branch should exercise its licensing authority to further safeguard the flow ¶ of contacts and resources into the
Island, encourage independent economic and political activity, and further empower the ¶ Cuban people. To that
end, the Cuba Study Group proposes that the President pursue the following measures: xxi¶ i) Modify Remittance and
Export Limitations: Increase the $3,000 limit on remittances that can be carried to ¶ Cuba by authorized travelers and expand the
types of goods that travelers may legally take to Cuba to support ¶ micro entrepreneurs. Fewer limitations in these areas will make it
easier for U.S. travelers to provide seed capital ¶ and in-kind contributions for start-ups.¶ ii) Authorize Travel by General License for
NGOs and Allow Them to Open Cuban Bank Accounts: Regulations ¶ enacted on January 28, 2011 allow U.S. full- and part-time
university staff to travel to Cuba by general license. ¶ These regulations also allow U.S.-based academic institutions to open accounts
in Cuban banks with funds to ¶ support their educational programs in Cuba. A similar license for foundations and NGOs whose
mission involves ¶ support for micro and small businesses would also help support this growing segment of civil society.¶ iii) Establish
New Licenses for the Provision of Services to Cuban Private Entrepreneurs: The President could ¶ build on existing authorizations
that allow U.S. persons and institutions to pay individual Cuban scholars,musicians and artists for their work. New licenses could
extend to additional groups, such as artisans or farmers, ¶ and authorize a greater scope of activities such as recording, publication,
distribution, etc.¶ iv) Authorize Imports of Certain Goods and Services to Businesses and Individuals Engaged in Certifiably ¶
Independent Economic Activity in Cuba: The President could authorize the importation of limited types of ¶ Cuban-origin goods and
services under general or specific licenses, particularly when such authorizations could ¶ be justified as providing support for the
Cuban people or democratic change in Cuba. For example, the President ¶ could authorize imports from private producers or allow
U.S. persons to directly engage and hire Cuban ¶ professionals.¶ v) Authorize Export and Sale of Goods and Services to Businesses
and Individuals Engaged in Certifiably ¶ Independent Economic Activity in Cuba: Amend existing licensing policy to establish a
presumption of approval ¶ for specific items deemed to support the U.S.-stated policy goal of promoting independent economic
activity on ¶ the Island. Since 2000, legislation has allowed the export of a broad range of agricultural products and a limited ¶ range
of medicines and medical devices. This should be expanded to include other inputs in demand by independent businesses,
including—but not limited to—good such as art supplies, food preparation equipment, ¶ bookkeeping materials, and basic electronic
equipment and software required for retail sales and business ¶ administration.¶ vi) Authorize the Sale of Telecommunications
Hardware in Cuba: Current U.S. regulations, as amended by the ¶ Obama administration in 2009, allow for donations of some
telecommunications equipment, thereby recognizing ¶ that these goods by themselves do not violate the embargo. The next step
should be to allow for the sales of ¶ those same goods inside the Island. Along with those provisions, changes should also allow for
the provision of ¶ general travel licenses for research, marketing and sale of those goods.¶ vii) Authorize the Reestablishment of
Ferry Services to Cuba: Current U.S. regulations allow both “aircraft and ¶ vessels” to serve Cuba as an exception to the U.S.
embargo against the Island.xxii The use of chartered aircrafts ¶ to transport Cuban-Americans and other licensed U.S. travelers to
and from Cuba has long been authorized by ¶ the U.S. Department of Treasury. The next step should be to reestablish safe and
secure chartered ferry services ¶ to transport the same categories of passengers to and from Cuba. Ferry service offers an affordable
alternative ¶ to airline travel to Cuba and would allow an increase in the amount of goods that Cuban-Americans and other ¶
licensed travelers may legally take to Cuba to support their families and micro entrepreneurs. ¶ viii)Simplify the Provision of
Controlled Commodities, such as Computers and Laptopsxxiii: Direct the Department ¶ of Commerce to provide more detailed
guidance for individuals to determine whether or not controlled commodities, ¶ such as laptops and printers, qualify under the
general export waiver.¶ x) Allow Licensed U.S. Travelers Access to U.S.-Issued Debit, Credit, and Pre-Paid Cards and Other Financial ¶
Services While on Authorized Travel in Cuba: Currently, U.S. travelers to Cuba have no access to U.S. bank ¶ accounts, credit cards,
debit cards or other basic financial services. With few exceptions, U.S. travelers are forced ¶ to carry cash with them to Cuba.
Allowing U.S. travelers access to electronic payment systems would help ensure ¶ their safety and security while being on the Island.
Moreover, authorizing new electronic payment systems would ¶ facilitate the Administration’s goal of promoting people-to-people
contacts and facilitating private economic ¶ activity by safeguarding the transfer of money from U.S. residents to relatives and
independent entrepreneurs ¶ on the island.¶ x) Review Cuba’s Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism:
Cuba’s status on the State Department’s list of ¶ state sponsors of terrorism has been subject to debate for more than a decade. The
President should order a ¶ comprehensive, apolitical review to determine whether this designation reflects the reality of Cuba
today.117117ww.CubaStudyGroup.org¶ 10¶ xi) Develop an expanded bilateral agenda with a range of specific topics of mutual
interest: Agenda should ¶ include topics such as the resolution of property claims to help foster an environment of dialogue,
problemsolving and trust building— thereby helping to set the stage for an eventual normalization of relations.
Plan Predictable
Plan is predictable – part of Helms Burton and they consider this T
Cuba Study Group 13 – Nonpartisan, nonprofit made up of business and professional individuals who want to help
facilitate a peaceful transition in Cuba leading to a free and open society
[Cuba Study Group, Restoring Executive Authority over U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, February 2013,
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=45d8f827-174c-4d43-aa2f-ef7794831032]
Endnotes i. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad)
Act of 1996 (Helms–Burton Act, Pub. L. 104-114, 110
Stat. 785, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021–¶ 6091). SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are (1) to assist the Cuban people in regaining
their freedom and prosperity and join the ¶ community of democratic countries that are flourishing in the Western Hemisphere; (2)
to strengthen international sanctions against the Castro ¶ government; (3) to
provide for the continued national
security of the United States in the face of continuing threats from the Castro government ¶
of terrorism, theft of property from United States nationals by the Castro government, and the political manipulation by the
Castro government ¶ of the desire of Cubans to escape that results in mass migration to the United States; (4) to encourage the
holding of free and fair democratic ¶ elections in Cuba that are conducted under the supervision of internationally recognized
observers; (5) to provide a policy framework for United ¶ States support to the Cuban people in response to the formation of a
transition government or a democratically elected government in Cuba; and ¶ (6) to protect United States nationals against
confiscatory takings and the wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime.
AT: Politics
No Link – XO
No link – Obama will use his executive authority
LAWG 13 – Latin American Working Group, NGO Cuban Policy Lobby Group (“Obama Wants
Progress on Cuba? Remove Cuba from the Terrorist List”, Latin American Working Group,
2/6/13, http://www.lawg.org/action-center/lawg-blog/69-general/1138-obama-wants-progresson-cuba-remove-cuba-from-the-terrorist-list ) //EO
If the Obama Administration wants to see progress in our relationship with Cuba over the next
four years, as the President said in a Telemundo interview last week, he actually has the
opportunity to make that progress possible and bring sanity to our Cuba policy, unlike most of
his predecessors. Well, all of his predecessors with the exception of President Jimmy Carter.¶
There is still much more that the President could do without congressional approval . We
want to focus on one important action that would open the door to other advances. Through
his executive authority, the President has the power to remove Cuba from the State
Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism . On March 1st, 1982, Cuba was added to this list because "at the time, numerous
U.S. government reports and statements under the Reagan Administration alleged Cuba's ties to international terrorism and its support for terrorist groups in Latin America,"
says a 2005 Congressional Research Services report. If you visit the State Department's website, the few paragraphs that detail Cuba's designation on the list actually read like
reasons to now remove Cuba from the list. Now is the time for the United States to show its sincerity in pursuing a path toward improved relations with Cuba. It's long overdue
that we join the rest of the world in recognizing that Cuba is not a threat, rather a potential partner in the western hemisphere. And if not a partner, then at least not an
adversary. Taking Cuba off this progress-stifling list would also send a "Johnny come lately" signal to our Latin American neighbors, who are challenging the United States on
Cuba policy, both publically and privately. If the United States wants to improve relationships with Western
Hemisphere countries in one big move, this is the way to do it.
Obama will use an XO – It’s normal means
The Hill 13 – News source covering Capitol Hill developments (“State keeps Cuba on terror
sponsors list”, thehill.com, 5/30/13, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/302609cuba-remains-a-state-sponsor-of-terror-despite-some-improvements) // EO
Decisions by the government to remove countries from the list of state sponsors of terrorism
can be made at any time by the president . These decisions are independent of the Country
Reports on Terrorism, which always review actions from the prior year.¶ To remove a country
from the list, the president must give notice to Congress by submitting a report outlining why
this change is being made.¶ Cuban-American lawmakers last month had pressed the White
House to ensure that Cuba had remained on the terror-sponsor list.¶ The decision also comes as
Cuba continues to hold an American citizen Alan Gross in prison, the latest hurdle to efforts to
improve relations between the two countries.
The Cuban-American Lobby and Farm States Historically Support Obama’s
Executive Orders on Cuba
AFP 09 – [AFP, “Obama lifts curbs on Cuba remittances, visits”, 4/14/09,
http:/www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDo_KVbScJcMcS5Q-58xkkvYBdjA
Cubans in Havana were jubilant.¶ "It's the news we've all been waiting for and hopefully it
marks the start of a new friendship between Cuba and the United States," said Ismary Hernandez, an employee of the
Cubatur travel agency.¶ The Cuban-American community welcomed the US move, saying it could elicit an
opening by communist Havana.¶ "Let's hope now the Raul Castro regime will be pressed to lift its own restrictions on Cubans wanting to travel to the island who now need a
visa or entry permit," Miami-based Cuban Democratic Directorate leader Orlando Gutierrez told AFP. ¶ The administration's actions won applause in US
farm states hoping to gain a new markets for their agricultural products. ¶ "We should also immediately eliminate the
roadblocks that the Bush administration put in place to make it harder for farmers to sell food to Cuba," said Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota.
Executive Orders Aren’t Challenged and Increase the President’s Popularity
Neuman 11 – [Scott Neuman, “Facing Stiffened Opposition, Obama Goes It Alone”, NPR,
10/31/11, http:/www.npr.org/2011/10/31/141879854/facing-stiffened-opposition-obama-goesit-alone //CHB]
Even though the orders can be — and frequently are — easily rescinded by a succeeding president of another party, they can
make short-term political points with a public that expects its president "to get things done,"
Howell says.¶ And while Congress could block an executive order either by passing legislation opposing it outright or simply refusing
to fund it, the president still has a veto.¶ The
executive order "tends to be used in those cases where the
president says, 'Look, I can't produce majorities or supermajorities required to enact legislation ... but the opposition
isn't so strong that if I just set policy that they will be able to overturn it, " Howell said.¶ Jonathan
Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, agreed. "The fact is a president knows that for a great
many things that he does, Congress would be hard-pressed to mount an opposition or
overcome a veto," Turley said.¶ That still leaves the possibility of judicial challenge, which is what happened in 1952 when
the Supreme Court ruled that President Truman didn't have the authority to order the seizure of steel mills during a nationwide
labor strike. In 1996, a federal appeals panel nullified an executive order from Clinton to prevent the U.S. government from
contracting with organizations that hired strikebreakers.¶ In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has generally made it harder
to challenge a president's actions, Turley said, leaving the president with "unchecked power."
Executive Orders Deliberately Prevent Congressional Backlash
Fleishman and Aufses 76 – [Joel H. Fleishman and Arthur H. Aufses, “Law and Orders: The
Problem Of Presidential Legislation”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Summer 1976 issue,
page 38 //CHB]
At the same time, however, the recent history of executive orders shows that presidential power of the first type-the ability
to act independently of Congress-has remained great, and has perhaps even increased. Indeed, we
might propose a tentative hypothesis: that Presidents have come to rely on executive orders in order to make up for their inability to mobilize
Congress. Experience demonstrates that Presidents can expect the support of the courts. Thus when they seek a particular policy, but doubt their
ability to move it through Congress, they can simply attempt to achieve that aim through an executive order. The history of policymaking in civil rights
provides, as we have seen, the most notable example. ¶ Several related factors, in particular, make executive orders especially at- tractive policymaking
tools for a President. First is speed. Even
if a President is reasonably confident of securing desired
legislation from Congress, he must wait for congressional deliberations to run their course.
Invariably, he can achieve far faster, if not immediate, results by issuing an executive order.
Moreover, when a President acts through an order, he avoids having to sub-ject his policy to
public scrutiny and debate. Second is flexibility. Executive orders have the force of law. Yet they differ from congressional legislation in
that a President can alter any executive order simply with the stroke of his pen-merely by issuing another executive order As noted earlier, Presidents
have developed the system of classifying national security documents in pre-cisely this manner. 209 Finally, executive
orders allow the
President, not only to evade hardened congressional opposition, but also to preempt
potential or growing opposition-to throw Congress off balance, to reduce its ability to
formulate a powerful opposing position.
Members Of Congress Like Executive Action On Cuba
Levinson 11 – [Alexis Levinson, “Obama’s looser policy towards Cuba gets mixed reviews on
Capitol Hill”, Daily Caller, 01/19/11, http:/dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/obamas-looser-policytowards-cuba-gets-mixed-reviews-on-capitol-hill/ //CHB]In contrast, Republican Arizona Rep. Jeff
Flake, said the move was “a long time coming.”¶ “I have always felt that the best way to promote democracy in Cuba is to
allow American values to be displayed there, and more travel to the country by Americans will do just that,” he said in a statement.¶ On the
other side of the aisle, John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, applauded the
effort to expand “people-to-people relations between the United States and Cuba.”¶ “If
governments cannot solve the problems between them,” he said in a statement, “at least they
should get out of the way and let citizens work toward finding solutions.Ӧ Kerry also suggested that the
influx of money that will flow into Cuba as result of the executive order will aid private enterprise in the communist country.
Hardline Cuba-Lobby Groups Liked Obama’s Executive Order On Travel
Restrictions
Miller 11 – [Robert H. Miller, “Cuba, While Collapsing”, Liberty, 2/23/11,
http:/www.libertyunbound.com/node/486 //CHB]
On January 14, President Obama announced that he would issue an executive order loosening
US travel restrictions and remittances to Cuba. Though the administration has yet to spell out the details of the
change in policy, several areas have been targeted.¶ Students seeking academic credit and church groups traveling for religious
purposes will now be able to visit the island. But it’s the broadening of the definition of “cultural” groups permitted to travel to Cuba
that could really open up the island to US tourism — depending on exactly what the new guidelines allow. The indications, according
to Arthur Frommer, a travel guide writer, are that these, if not broad indeed, will be fuzzy enough to allow the entire head of the
camel to slip into the tent. Additionally, authorized charter flights to the island will be able to depart from any US international
airport equipped with proper customs and immigration facilities. Right now, only LAX, Miami, and New York City can offer flights to
Cuba.¶ Predictably, Republicans reacted skeptically — or unfavorably. Hence, Obama’s end-run around Congress. But the
reformed Cuban American National Foundation, once the hardest of hardliners, welcomed the
proposal, stating that “it’s going to help the interaction between regular Cubans and US
citizens; it’s going to help Cuban people inside the island to gain independence from the
Cuban government, especially now that roughly a million will be without jobs” — a reference to Raúl
Castro’s decision to reduce the government workforce.
Plan pop – General
Plan is overwhelmingly popular
Bender 13 – Veteran Reporter for the Globes Washington Bureau (Bryan Bender, Talk grows of
taking Cuba off terror list, The Boston Globe, Feb. 21 2013,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/21/cuba-label-terrorist-state-longerjustified-some-officials-say/CmVFXsVC4M1R1WbHE8lb0H/story.html ) TA
WASHINGTON — High-level US diplomats have concluded that Cuba should no longer be
designated a state sponsor of terrorism, raising the prospect that Secretary of State John F.
Kerry could remove a major obstacle to restoring relations with the Cold War-era foe,
government officials said.¶ Cuba no longer actively supports terrorist groups such as the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC, or former members of Spain’s
Basque Fatherland and Liberty, also known as the ETA, according to State Department findings.¶
And interviews with a series of top administration officials and members of Congress indicate
there is a growing consensus in policy and intelligence circles that Cuba’s support for terrorist
groups has been terminated and the country should be removed from the list — much like the
George W. Bush administration did with North Korea in 2008.
Plan Pop – Bipart
Overwhelming support for removing Cuba in Congress
HSN 13 – committed to reporting everything Hispanic (Hispanic Speaking News, Rep. McGovern
Says It’s Time for U.S. to Drop Cuba from Terror List, Hispanic Speaking News, March 8 2013,
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-daily-news/details/rep.-mcgovern-says-itstime-for-u.s.-to-drop-cuba-from-terror-list/22830/) TA
The United States should remove Cuba from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism as a
gesture of goodwill so that progress can be made on a broad range of matters of bilateral
interest, political and academic leaders said on Thursday.¶ “There is no evidence that Cuba is
sponsoring terrorist groups,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said during a forum organized by
the Washington Office on Latin America.¶ McGovern, who recently met for more than two hours
with Cuban President Raul Castro, on Thursday urged the Barack Obama administration to
seize the moment to improve relations with Cuba.¶ When asked by Efe about how many
Democrats and Republicans in Congress support that request, McGovern said that there is a
“growing consensus” and that “if there were a secret vote, it would be overwhelming” in
terms of its support for removing Cuba from the list.
Getting Cuba off the terror list is a bipartisan effort
Bender 13 – Veteran Reporter for the Globes Washington Bureau (Bryan Bender, Talk grows of
taking Cuba off terror list, The Boston Globe, Feb. 21 2013,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/21/cuba-label-terrorist-state-longerjustified-some-officials-say/CmVFXsVC4M1R1WbHE8lb0H/story.html ) TA
The pressure to de-list Cuba as a terrorism sponsor comes as a bipartisan congressional
delegation traveled to Cuba this week to discuss how the two estranged nations might find
ways to lift a US embargo in place for five decades and cooperate on a host of economic,
agricultural, and security matters.¶ But the delegation, which included Representative James P.
McGovern of Worcester, left Cuba on Wednesday after failing in its immediate goal: to win the
release of an American prisoner, Alan Gross. The nearly four-year standoff over Gross is among
a number of matters holding up efforts to improve relations.¶ But despite that failure, the
meetings were constructive, and the tone promising, McGovern said in a phone interview,
after meeting with President Raul Castro in Havana on Tuesday.¶ “They are interested in
improving relations because it is in their interest. I feel they are really interested in sitting down
and engaging, where everything is on the table — the embargo, the travel restrictions,
migration, everything,” McGovern said.
AT: Appeasement DA and Condition CP
Taking Cuba off the terrorism list is sufficient to send an international symbol of
engagement and isn’t appeasement
López-Levy, 13 - PhD candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the
University of Denver (Arturo, “Getting Ready for Post-Castro Cuba” The National Interest, 4/10,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/getting-ready-post-castro-cuba-8316
Time for Presidential Action
In this new context, the United States should open a path for those regime voices who have an
interest in backing more serious reforms. Washington should weaken the naysayers within
the Cuban elites by showing what Cuba can gain through opening up. This requires a U.S.
willingness to test Havana with real incentives in ways it has not done since the Ford and
Carter Administrations.
Washington's current strategy—ignoring Raúl Castro's promarket moves and using USAID
regime-change programs to meddle in Cuba's domestic politics—is yielding diminishing returns.
The United States would gain more by allowing its own business community to trade and
invest in the emerging Cuban non-state sector and beginning a limited engagement with the
new leaders in Havana. A dynamic Cuban market would whet corporate appetites and put the
U.S. embargo against the island in jeopardy. This vision lines up with the criticism of Cold Warera U.S. Cuba policy expressed in the past by President Obama and his new secretaries of state
and defense, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.
The opportunity to redesign U.S. policy towards Cuba will not last forever. A failure to respond to Raúl Castro’s overtures for
negotiation with Washington would be a strategic mistake. Unfortunately, the 1996 Helms-Burton law codified the embargo as a
legislative act, limiting presidential authority to terminate sanctions in response to changing conditions. But President Obama still
can make a significant difference in bilateral relations if he decided to lead on the issue by using his prerogative as a diplomat-inchief. The
president can begin by taking Cuba off the State Department list of state sponsors of
terrorism. It would be a positive gesture towards Havana and a signal to the world that he
meant what he said when he advertised a new diplomatic approach towards U.S. adversaries .
It will not be a concession to Cuba, since Havana has not been connected to any terrorist
actions for at least the last twenty years. The misuse of the list to serve the agenda of the proembargo lobby undermines its credibility against real terrorist threats. Taking Cuba off the
State Department terror-sponsor list also will provide a framework to negotiate the Alan
Gross affair. Gross, a USAID subcontractor, is serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Havana. He was arrested by Cuban
authorities because of his covert mission providing satellite access to internet to several Cuban civil-society groups, circumventing
government controls. The Cuban government admits that Gross was not a spy but found that his actions could make Cuba
vulnerable to cyber warfare by the United States. Gross’s activities are provided for under section 109 of the Helms-Burton law, a
program designed to promote regime change on the island. Negotiation on the Gross case is held up because of the false premise
that he is a hostage of a terror-sponsoring nation. But
the situation might become manageable if the two
countries negotiate an agreement that could be face-saving for both governments. Such an
agreement could be the first step in a course of engagement and people-to-people contact. If the United
States is to have some influence during the transition to a post-Castro Cuba, it must start this process today.