NEGATIVE
***1NC
Shell---Cuba Good
Cuban normalization will pass with an ambassador confirmed – PC key
-Will pass warrants: general momentum (which outweighs everything), public support, and
previous progress
-Yes push – demands of Congress and press conferences
-Obama’s PC is high – Supreme Court victories on the ACA and same-sex marriage + SC speech
Milbank 7/5 {Dana, politics columnist based at The Washington Post and MSNBC, former
senior editor of The New Republic, B.A. cum laude in political science (Yale), “Obama
spending his windfall of political capital on Cuba,” Herald Net, 2015,
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20150705/OPINION04/150709675#THUR}
Obama said in the Rose Garden on Wednesday as he announced the restoration of diplomatic relations
with Cuba, “is what change looks like.” This echo of his 2008 campaign theme was self-congratulatory but
deserved, coming at a time of unexpected hope late in his presidency. In the space of just over a week,
Obama's tired tenure came back to life . He bested congressional Democrats and got trade legislation on his desk. The
Supreme Court upheld the signature achievement of his presidency — Obamacare — and thereby
cemented his legacy. The high court also made same-sex marriage legal across the land following a tidal
change in public opinion that Obama's own conversion accelerated. Had the court's decisions not dominated the
nation's attention , Obama's eulogy Friday for those slain in a South Carolina church, and his extraordinary rendition of
“Amazing Grace,” would have itself been one of the most powerful moments of his presidency. It is
little surprise, then, that this lame duck's job approval rating hit a respectable 50 percent this
week for the first time in two years in a CNN poll, and his disapproval rating dropped to 47. The good tidings of the past week
have been arguably more luck than achievement for Obama, but he deserves credit for his effort to use the momentum
of his victories to revive what had been a moribund presidency. When you earn political capital, as
George W. Bush liked to say, you spend it . This is why it was shrewd of the surging Obama to demand
“This,” President
new action from Congress on Cuba . “Americans and Cubans alike are ready to move
forward ; I believe it's time for Congress to do the same,” he said, renewing his call to lift the travel and trade embargo.
“Yes, there are those who want to turn back the clock and double down on a policy of isolation, but it's long past time for us to realize that
this approach doesn't work. It hasn't worked for 50 years. ... So I'd ask Congress to listen to the Cuban people, listen to the
American people, listen to the words of a proud Cuban American, [former Bush commerce secretary] Carlos Gutierrez, who recently came out against
the policy of the past.” Fifteen minutes later, Obama lifted off from the South Lawn in Marine One on his way to Nashville, where he tried to use the momentum
generated by the Supreme Court Obamacare victory to spread the program to states where Republican governors have resisted. “What I'm hoping is that with the
Supreme Court case now behind us, what we can do is ... now focus on how we can make it even better,” he said, adding, “My hope is that on a bipartisan basis, in
places like Tennessee but all across the country, we can now focus on ... what have we learned? What's working? What's not working?” He said that “because of
politics, not all states have taken advantage of the options that are out there. Our hope is, is that more of them do.” He urged people to “think about this in a practical
it's refreshing to see Obama, too often
passive, regaining vigor as he approaches the final 18 months of his presidency. The energy had, at least
for the moment, returned to the White House , where no fewer than six network correspondents were doing live stand-ups
before Obama's appearance Wednesday morning. There was a spring in the president's step, if not a swagger, as
he emerged from the Oval Office trailed by Vice President Biden. Republican presidential candidates were
nearly unanimous in denouncing the plan to open a U.S. embassy in Havana. But Obama, squinting in the sunlight
as he read from his teleprompters, welcomed the fight . “The progress that we mark today is yet another
demonstration that we don't have to be imprisoned by the past,” he said. Quoting a Cuban-American's view that “you
American way instead of a partisan, political way.” This probably won't happen, but
can't hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past,” Obama added, “That's what this is about: a choice between the future and the
past.” Obama
turned to go back inside, ignoring the question shouted by Bloomberg's Margaret Talev: “How will you
get an ambassador confirmed?” That will indeed be tricky. But momentum is everything in
politics — and for the moment, Obama
has it again .
[Insert link – domestic surveillance reform is unpopular]
Full diplomatic ties key to normalized relations – vital to improved regional stability
and counter-narcotics – status quo doesn’t solve and Obama has exhausted his available
actions
Bowman 7/1 {Michael, syndicated senate correspondent, “Global Chatter Greets US-Cuba
Announcement,” VOA, 2015, http://www.voanews.com/content/global-chatter-greets-us-cubarestoration-of-diplomatic-ties/2845227.html#THUR}
restoration of full diplomatic relations between the U nited S tates and Cuba sparked
overwhelmingly positive reactions around the world, except in the United States, where opinions diverged widely. A spokesman
for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he “welcomes the announcement today that Cuba and the United States will reopen embassies in Havana
and Washington, D.C.” “The restoration of diplomatic ties is an important step on the path toward the
normalization of relations. The secretary-general hopes that this historic step will benefit the peoples of both countries,” the spokesman added. For decades,
The
Switzerland has served as a go-between for Washington and Havana, housing the U.S. Interest Section in the Cuban capital. In a statement, the Swiss government
Switzerland strongly believes that the reopening of the two embassies and the normalization process will overall
be beneficial for the two states and contribute to security, stability and prosperity in the region. Switzerland
views the normalization of relations between Cuba and the U.S. as very positive – not only for these two countries but for the
whole region and for world stability.” ‘Incentivizing a police state’ By contrast, reactions are decidedly mixed in Washington and
said: “
across the United States. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican John Boehner, said in a statement, “The Obama administration is handing the
Castros a lifetime dream of legitimacy without getting a thing for the Cuban people being oppressed by this brutal communist dictatorship.” Echoing the criticism,
Menendez, the son of parents who immigrated to the U.S. from Cuba, said: “Our demands for freedoms and liberty on the island
policy of the United States giving and the Castro brothers
freely taking is not in our national interest and not a responsible approach when dealing with repressive rulers that deny freedoms to [their]
Democratic Senator Robert
will continue to be ignored, and we are incentivizing a police state to uphold a policy of brutality. A
people. An already one-sided deal that benefits the Cuban regime is becoming all the more lopsided.” ‘New era of possibility’ House Democratic Leader Nancy
Pelosi disagreed. “Reopening embassies lays the foundation for a new, more productive
relationship with Cuba that can support and advance key American priorities, including human rights,
counter-narcotics cooperation , business opportunities for American companies, migration, family unification, and cultural- and
faith-based exchanges,” she said. “President Obama’s bold leadership has opened a new era of possibility in U.S.-Cuban relations.”
That sentiment was
echoed by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy.
Improved efforts key to prevent cartels and Hezbollah attacks with WMDs
Pavlich ’11 (Katie, award-winning journalist, B.A. in broadcast journalism (University of
Arizona), This article quotes Douglas Farah (Senior Fellow at the International Assessment and
Strategy Center, B.A. in Latin American Studies from Kansas) and Patrick Meehan (US
representative on the Homeland Security Committee), “A Growing Terror Threat: Hezbollah in
Latin America,” TownHall Magazine, 7/8,
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2011/07/08/a_growing_terror_threat_hezbollah_in_l
atin_america/page/full)
Americans think of terrorist activity, we think of Yemen, Pakistan, Palestine and other places in the Middle East, but we overlook the rapidly
increasing terrorism threat coming from Hezbollah operations taking place in Latin America.
“This is a very important issue we pay too little attention to ,” Senior Fellow for the International Assessment and Strategy Center
When
Farah told lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday during a counterterrorism hearing. According to testimony given on Capitol Hill yesterday, Hezbollah,
the most extensive terrorist organization in the world , is operating along the U.S.-Mexico
border and has vast influence in Latin America . Hezbollah is anti-American and anti-Israeli, and the United States has been
concerned about the group since the 1980s. Before 9/11, Hezbollah, not Al Qaeda, was responsible for the majority of U.S. terrorism
deaths, including the 1983 bombings of U.S. Marine barracks and U.S. embassy in Beirut, in addition to a series of attacks in the '80s. Hezbollah is also Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. In
Douglas
1994 they bombed the Jewish community center in the same responsible for countless attacks on Israel. In 1992, Hezbollah, with help from Iran, bombed the South American city. Those are just
Hezbollah makes Al Qaeda
look like a minor league team,” Chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) said. Hezbollah
was created by Iran and has close ties to Syria. The group is also backed by Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, who has a cozy relationship with Iran. “Hezbollah, backed by Iran and
Venezuela, is a determined enemy of the United States that has made substantial progress in Latin
America, ” Ambassador and American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow Roger Noriega said during the hearing, adding that he believes there will be an
attack on U.S. personnel if nothing is done soon to counter Hezbollah in Latin America. Hezbollah is
a handful of examples that don’t even account for the thousands of rockets Hezbollah has launched into Israel throughout the years. “
the most prevalent terrorist organization in the world. The group operates in over 40 countries and on 5 continents, including operations in at least 15 U.S. cities and four major Canadian cities.
In South America specifically, the group operates in the region where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. Brazil is used as a major terrorism hub and
cocaine is exchanged for weapons in Colombia. “Hezbollah remains the premium terrorist
organization in the world,” Farah said in testimony. Hezbollah is a very sophisticated terrorist group, with activity beyond criminal. Intelligence shows
the group started pushing its terrorism initiative into South America a decade ago but upped its
efforts in 2005, a new approach that is a threat to the United States. Testimony showed
Hezbollah is strategically positioning itself in order to possibly launch a response to an Iranian
attack either from the U.S. or Isreal on their nuclear program. Intelligence cited during the
hearing also shows the group is interested in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, which
should be taken seriously since the group has published entire books about how to build and use
WMDs and terrorist operations are justified by Hezbollah’s belief in Islam’s ongoing struggle with the West through violent jihad. Hezbollah has also been
supplying explosives training to Mexican drug cartels operating along the U.S.-Mexico border, and tunnels used in the area are near replicas of weaponssmuggling tunnels built by Hezbollah and used in Lebanon. Since 2006, violence in Mexico has rapidly escaladed and cartels have become more ruthless. In addition, Mexican
cartels are serving as source of financing and easy entrance for the organization into the
United States.
Nuclear terrorist attack causes escalation – risks extinction directly and via
retaliation
Hellman 8 (Dr. Martin E., professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford University,
The Bent, Spring 2008, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily
on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A
terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon
would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central
Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a
trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed
forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of
Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be
roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one
percent, but notes, “We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1%
.... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but extremely low-probability.”
[Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the “probability of
an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it
more likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of
nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism
is one of the potential trigger
mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear
terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies
would be directed to reduce whichever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the
U.S. and China over Taiwan). This article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of fullscale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact,
society’s almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important. The Cost of World War III
The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a
failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a
failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World
War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War II’s fatalities were double or triple that number—
chaos prevented a more precise determination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of
those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapolation of the effects
of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will
then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint
session of the Philippine Congress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, “Global
war has become a Frankenstein to
destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No
longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of
double suicide.” Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the
present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently,
George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that
nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly
destructive of life on earth and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms,
still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact: “The resulting deaths would be
far beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to
77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20
million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths
during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die
from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the
following winter, but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might
eventually die of latent radiation effects.” [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility
of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that assumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS
1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous nuclear explosions and their
resultant fire storms could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face
of the earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by
ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus
on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even
a limited
nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could
have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that
would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be,
prudence dictates that we apply the same engineering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary
and assume that preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.
***UNIQUENESS
Will Pass---2NC Wall
Will pass but uniqueness doesn’t overwhelm the link – appropriations committee
proves momentum, vote count, lack of political means to block, Republicans coming
around
Hattem 7/7 {Julian, B.A. in Anthropology (The University of Chicago), national affairs
correspondent for The Hill, “Senators Back off Plan to Block Cuban Embassy,” 2015,
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/247094-senate-bill-backs-off-plan-to-block-cubanembassy#THUR}
Republicans appear unlikely to use the funding process to block President Obama’s plan to open
a U.S. Embassy in Cuba this month, despite initial vows to prevent the landmark policy change. A $49
billion funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations that passed through a Senate Appropriations subcommittee was
silent on the plan. Efforts to amend it to block the embassy appear politically impossible ,
subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) acknowledged, though he opposes the new embassy as much as
ever. “On the Senate side, I’m not so sure we have all Republicans where I’m at in terms of not
establishing an embassy,” Graham, who is running for president, told reporters after the brief subcommittee markup. “ I don’t
Senate
know if the votes are there on our side, quite frankly .” Despite the heated opposition
to Obama’s plans from Graham and other prominent Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), another
presidential hopeful, many conservatives have been more receptive of the change in posture . Sens.
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), White House candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and others have welcomed the thaw in U.S.-Cuban relations. The
GOP opposition appeared to be in trouble last week when the White House announced it planned
to open the embassy in Cuba. The Cuban government said a U.S. Embassy in Havana and Cuban Embassy in Washington would both open their doors
on July 20.
Still, Graham’s crusade is not necessarily dead . He is going to seek to add
an amendment when the bill reaches the full committee later this week, he told reporters, though it is unclear
whether he has the support for it to stick. “The one thing I’ve anticipated all my career is make sure I’ve got the votes,” he said. “So
I’m going to offer it tomorrow and whether or not we vote on it will be dependent on how the vote count goes.” Unlike the Senate, House legislation to fund the State
A new ambassador to Cuba
would also need to be confirmed by the Senate, which could be another hurdle . “It’s just a
matter of where the votes are at, and the House has good language, which I support,” Graham
said. “ So this thing is not over yet.”
Department would block the creation of the embassy, which could be a stumbling block for the administration.
Will pass – assumes barriers like property rights
Tucker 7/14 {Will, researcher at The Center for Responsive Politics, “Property Claims Loom
as Issue in U.S.-Cuba Normalization,” 2015,
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/07/property-claims-loom-as-issue-in-u-s-cubanormalization/#THUR}
Cuba
will soon get an American ambassador and a full U.S. embassy in Havana
for the first
on the path to normalized relations, there’s a $7 billion potential roadblock. And large U.S. corporations with big
10 American families has hired a law firm in Alexandria, Va.,
to take aim at the issue of property claims in Cuba, of which there are about 6,000 certified by the U.S. government with a total value of between $7 and $8 billion,
including interest. When Cuban revolutionaries seized assets owned by foreigners after the country’s 1959 revolution, the U.S. was the
time in more than half a century. But
lobbying operations aren’t taking the lead on this one — individual Americans are. A group of
largest foreign investor on the island. Many Americans with Cuban assets made claims on their lost property,
which then ballooned in value with interest and have been passed down through families. Before June 2015, the Alexandria firm Poblete & Tomargo
had just two clients with property claims in Cuba. One is a former American ambassador to Denmark who’s a frequent donor to political campaigns; the other is a family in Omaha, Neb. Then
came the Obama administration’s overtures to Cuba in December. The firm has added eight more clients this year, riding the surge of renewed popular interest. Each of Poblete & Tomargo’s
clients will pay the firm less than $5,000, according to Jason Poblete, one of the firm’s principals and a former aide to Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) and the House Oversight Committee.The goal
for each: get a check from Cuba that sets right the expropriation from many years ago. Before the revolution, Poblete said, “There was a positive relationship between the Cuban and American
people…[W]hen the break happened in 1959, it was kind of a shock to all these people. And eventually they had to pack up and leave.” Assets owned by large U.S. corporations were seized, too.
One of the companies that had to decamp from the country was Exxon, now Exxon Mobil. The company lost $71 million as Cuba seized its Havana refinery. Office Depot owns a $256 million
claim through corporate mergers. But “the overwhelming majority of claims are not corporate or large claims,” Poblete said. And in fact, the large companies don’t seem to be pressing on the
issue of property claims. When it comes to Cuba lobbying, most large U.S. corporations and trade associations have focused on easing the embargo. Exxon has never disclosed lobbying on the
issue of Cuba at all. A lobbyist for Officemax, later acquired by Office Depot, did work on “foreign relations with Cuba as it relates to company interests involving electric utility” — referring to
Overall, interest in — and lobbying on —
Cuba has soared since Obama’s December announcement. In the first quarter of 2014, there were 15
companies or other clients lobbying on anything Cuba-related. A year later, that number had more
than tripled to 51. Some of the entities that newly hired lobbyists on Cuba issues this year include the American Society of Travel Agents, the City of Key West, Corning
the company’s property claim, which involved an electric company — but did so for just one year, 2003.
Inc., the commissioner’s office of Major League Baseball and Halliburton. But restitution for property taken “was an issue nobody was paying attention to,” Poblete said. “The property issue
Thanks to the new agreement between the two countries to restore
diplomatic relations, the Obama administration is ready to start a discussion about the claims, according to a State
should have been close to the front of the discussion, and it hasn’t been.”
Department official. “We have proposed to the Cubans starting such discussions,” the official said. But Poblete believes that Cuba will almost certainly try to get the U.S. to shrink the $7-8
billion figure calculated by including interest owed on the claims. The impoverished island country will likely argue that it deserves a discount for the hardship it experienced at the hands of the
U.S., due to the embargo.
Ahead of that debate, Poblete wants to educate Congress and the State Department.
a lot of folks on the Hill had no idea this even existed,” he said. “We’re trying to change
“Let me be frank with you,
that.” Two of Poblete’s & Tamargo’s clients spoke at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on June 18. If getting Cuba to cut a check for their property was the witnesses’ main goal, it
didn’t show. For the most part, their testimony veered into the emotional. “I would love to reclaim ownership of grandmother’s house. It’s truly a family legacy and has great sentimental value to
us. I don’t know how realistic that is,” Amy Rosoff, one of Poblete’s clients, said at the hearing. Her family lost a 17-room Spanish Colonial house in Havana to the Cuban takeover, according to
the Associated Press. “My father and grandmother had their homes, businesses, property and investments stolen from them. There’s no way to quantify it…their lives were redefined without their
Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, in which it laid out its desire for the U.S. to make
progress on resolving claims like Rosoff’s before normalizing relations. The U.S. and Cuba
haven’t yet done so, but “the [State] Department is committed to pursuing a resolution,” the State
consent.”
official said.
Will pass – insider perspective
Hoskinson 6/27 {Charles, politics columnist and former senior editor for Politico and
Congressional Quarterly, M.A. in Mass Communications (University of South Florida),
“Senators Hope Congress Will Support Cuba Opening,” Washington Examiner, 2015,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senators-hope-congress-will-support-cubaopening/article/2567184#THUR}
A delegation of U.S. senators visiting Cuba on Saturday said they hope Congress would support President
Obama's opening toward the Communist-run island, Reuters reported. The two Democrats, Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Ben
Cardin of Maryland, and one Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, spoke at a news conference after meeting First Vice
President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez. " We think that can be achieved this year and
we can make additional progress next year," Cardin said. " We're optimistic this path that
President Obama and President (Raul) Castro started will be continued."
Will Pass---A2: McConnell Statements
McConnell is wrong and just posturing – bipartisan support for reform
Dennis 7/13 {Steven, syndicated White House correspondent and politics columnist, B.S. in
journalism (University of Maryland), “White House on Cuba: Ambassador? We Don’t Need No
Stinkin’ Ambassador,” Roll Call – POTUS Operandi, 2015, http://blogs.rollcall.com/whitehouse/cuba-policy-will-go-ahead-without-ambassador/?dcz=#THUR}
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s
statement on Fox News Sunday that it’s unlikely the Senate will
confirm any nominee as ambassador to Cuba doesn’t sit well at the White House. “I think that
that’s the kind of reflexive opposition to you know, anything that the president proposes, that is a
hallmark — has been a hallmark of at least this Republican Congress,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday about
the Kentucky Republican’s remark. “The irony here is there actually is some bipartisan support for the
Cuba policy that the president announced at the end of last year.” Earnest said the administration
would press ahead anyway.
Will Pass---A2: Public Sentiment
Public opinion arguments go neg – New pro-normalization PAC proves
Schwartz 7/14 {Felicia, syndicated politics correspondent for The Wall Street
Journal/CNN/NewsCred, B.A. in History and Geography (Dartmouth), “Pro-Normalization PAC
Raising Funds to Back Obama’s Cuba Initiative,” Wall Street Journal – Washington Wire, 2015,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/14/pro-normalization-pac-raising-funds-to-back-obamascuba-initiative/#THUR}
A political action committee launched in May to support normalizing U.S. relations with Cuba raised
more than $178,000 in the past two months, a sign of public support for closer ties between the two
countries, the group’s director said. The group, New Cuba PAC, views itself as a counterweight to the pro-embargo
U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which launched in 2004. The director of that group, Mauricio Claver-Carone, said Monday the group had raised
more than $200,000 this year. In 2014, it raised more than $300,000 and since its founding has raised over $4 million, according to the group’s filings with the Federal
The sums announced this week aren’t that big in the world of political fundraising – the
largest PACs raise tens of millions of dollars each year – but are an indication of the surge of interest in Cuba since
President Barack Obama’s announcement last December that he would move to normalize relations with the former Cold
War foe. “This is something that’s been missing for a long time,” James Williams, director of the pro-normalization New Cuba PAC
said. “When we approached it the hard liner, pro-embargo side was incredibly skeptical and with this filing it shows they were wrong. People who care
about this issue put their money where their mouth is.”
Election Commission.
***THUMPERS
A2: Thumpers---Top Shelf
Issues don’t trade off until it’s at the finish line
Drum, 10 (Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this
attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about
political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an
active one. Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue.
Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue.
Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks
about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is
squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays
in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and
the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go
with its saturation coverage — well, that's
when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell
you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a
background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007, when he tried to move an actual
bill . Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative
point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make
any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds."
Maybe not. But they will be soon.
A2: Thumpers---Iran
Iran won’t cost capital – GOP likely won’t oppose it
Sargent 7/15 {Greg, syndicated politics correspondent, “Morning Plum: Do Republicans
Really Want to Block the Iran Deal in Congress? The Washington Post, 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/15/morning-plum-do-republicansreally-want-to-block-the-iran-deal-in-congress/#THUR}
here’s the question : Once all the procedural smoke clears, do Republicans really want an endgame in which
they succeeded in blocking the deal? Do they actually want to scuttle it? Perhaps many of them genuinely do
want that. But here’s a prediction: as this battle develops, some Republicans may privately conclude that it would be
better for them politically if they fail to stop it . The Iran debate may come to resemble the one over the antiObamacare lawsuit that also recently fell short. Congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates are predicting dire consequences if the Iran deal goes
forward. But what’s missing from the discussion is that if Congress does somehow block the deal, that
could precipitate a whole different set of consequences. Former Obama administration official Dennis Ross spells out those consequences this
But
way: Opponents need to explain what happens if the rest of the world accepts this deal, Iran says it is ready to implement it — and Congress blocks it. Will the
European Union, which explicitly commits in the agreement to lift sanctions once Iran has fulfilled its main nuclear responsibilities, not do so because Congress says
no? Can sanctions really be sustained in these circumstances, particularly if the Iranians don’t increase their enrichment and say they will observe the deal? Could we
be faced with a world in which the sanctions regime collapses, Iran gets its windfall and is only two months from breakout, and there is little on-ground visibility into
Some Congressional Republicans are also quietly mulling another possibility: What if
our allies blame them for tanking the deal they support? The New York Times points out that
GOP repudiation of the deal “was a blow not only to Mr. Obama but also to conservative leaders the party usually
backs, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.” And note this telling
moment from GOP Senator Bob Corker: “In the next couple of months, the international community is
going to be focused on Congress. I got that ,” Mr. Corker said in an interview. “ I understand the position
we’re in.” To be clear, it would be folly to predict with certainty how the politics of this will play out.
Many Democrats may well decide it’s hard for them to back the deal. And Republicans may be able to use procedural votes to inflict some damage on them. But
even so , Republicans could also conclude that their best outcome is to inflict that damage in the short term while also
failing to block the deal in the end. Just as Republicans realized that “winning” the lawsuit against Obamacare could force them to own the
its program?
consequences of their “victory,” and increase pressure them to specify concrete alternative courses of action, they may conclude it’s a good thing that the
Congressional oversight mechanism negotiated by Senator Corker (which they supported, by the way) makes it so
hard for them to “win” by scuttling the Iran deal.
Even if we’re wrong – No thumper – Senate republicans are key to Cuba and Dems
are key to Iran
Allen 7/14 {Jonathan, former Washington bureau chief for Bloomberg News, “Obama's Iran
deal is Making Democrats in Congress Very Nervous,” Vox, 2015,
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8963101/obama-iran-deal-democrats#THUR}
The Iran nuclear deal may be good policy — and a legacy builder for President Barack Obama — but it also creates a tougher
political environment for Democrats running for president and Congress in 2016. "Overall, this is a deal
that will probably come at a price on the campaign trail," said Princeton University political science professor Julian
Zelizer, who has written about the short-term political pain of past treaties. "Republicans will play to the fears among voters,
including Democrats, that this is too risky." The best proof of the thorny politics: Obama already
has vowed to veto planned legislation blocking the deal. That means he will rely on just one-third of either
the House or Senate voting with him to save it. He needs a majority of Democrats but only a minority of
either chamber. That paradigm — Republicans uniformly opposed and Democrats divided —
will make the agreement a tougher sell to the broader public than if it had bipartisan majority support or even full
backing from Obama's Democrats. "The easier vote for most us will be no," said one House
Democrat who is inclined to back the president. Members don't tend to lose their seats for voting against the president when his
position ends up winning, the lawmaker explained. On the other side, it's easy for Republican candidates to be against Obama and his foreign policy — it plays well
with their base — and they were vocal in their criticism of the deal even before they'd had a chance to read all the details. Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker
flicked at how the GOP will go after Democrats on the deal . "President Obama has abandoned the
bipartisan principles that have guided our nonproliferation policy and kept the world safe from nuclear danger for decades," Walker said in a statement. "Instead of
The larger issue here is that in
the waning light of his presidency, Obama is increasingly making policy in areas that divide
making the world safer, this deal will likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the world’s most dangerous region."
Democrats — from trade to the Iran deal — and they are concerned that his political incentives no
longer match theirs. They know that Obama, who refers to the last two years of his presidency as the "fourth quarter," is running a two-minute drill to
secure as much of his legacy as possible before he leaves office. And those goals may not always serve their political futures. Why this is so
difficult for Democrats From the White House's perspective — and that of many Democrats — the deal
with Iran is far preferable to leaving in place a sanctions regime that doesn't actually stop Tehran from developing a nuclear
weapon or going to war with Iran. Under the pact, Iran would give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of certain economic sanctions, which
The key is whether the inspections and enforcement provisions of the deal
can be implemented effectively and whether Iran's loss of nuclear capability is verifiable. And therein lies the rub for
Democrats on the ballot in 2016. The deal won't be consecrated for months. Republicans charge that it's not airtight —
that Obama is putting his faith in the trustworthiness of the Iranian regime. The truth is that the next election is too soon to judge
whether Iran is complying with its end of the bargain, which leaves Democrats open to Republican
attacks that the deal is a disaster. It will be hard for Democratic candidates to prove a negative.
One House Democrat who is generally supportive of the president — and open to the deal — expressed hope Tuesday that the
Senate would sustain an Obama veto of legislation blocking the deal so that House Democrats wouldn't have
to vote on it at all. It's easier for Obama to round up 34 senators than 146 House
Democrats, the lawmaker argued — even though conventional wisdom holds that the opposite is true. Obama's interests and those of
fellow Democrats are diverging in the "fourth quarter" There was a time, earlier in his administration, when fellow
Democrats would have walked the plank for Obama without letting their political concerns slow them down. Those
days are over . "It is not unusual as a president comes to the last months of his administration, particularly if it's
would make it less of a nuclear threat and more stable.
his second term, that members of his party become a little less willing to follow the president's lead," former Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and onetime
Obama's incentives are necessarily different from those of his
Democratic allies in Congress . While he's focused on policy and legacy, they are focused on
policy and winning reelection. Increasingly, Obama has used tools that don't require full Democratic
support to implement policy — such as executive actions and the Iran deal. Still, Democrats know they will be held
accountable for his actions, particularly if they can't show that they opposed him on a specific issue. Jim Manley, a former aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said.
and Minority Leader Harry Reid, said the dynamics of a congressional disapproval vote — which would set up the veto and the one-third threshold necessary to
sustain it — give the president an advantage. "
I think in the end, the president will have enough
Democrats with him to sustain a veto ," Manley said. "For many Democrats, the politics of this
are so tricky they will be forced to vote against their president."
No Obama push – Uncle Biden has this one
Walsh 7/15 {Deirdre, Senior Congressional producer, B.A. in Political
Science/Communications (Boston College), winner of the Joan Barone Award for excellence in
Washington-based Congressional or political reporting, “WH Dispatches Joe Biden to Lock
down Iran Deal on Capitol Hill,” CNN – Politics, 2015,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/iran-deal-white-house-democrats-congress/#THUR}
A day after the Iran deal was unveiled, the Obama administration's sales job began in earnest. Vice
President Joe Biden traveled to Capitol Hill to convince House Democrats to support the
deal, while a small group of senators were invited to the White House to get their questions
answered directly from officials who sat across from the Iranians at the negotiating table. Lawmakers said Biden was
candid about the strengths and weaknesses of the compromise deal. One described his behind closed doors
pitch. "I'm going to put aside my notes and talk to you from my heart because I've been in this business for 45
years," Biden said in his opening comments, according to Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey, who attended the session. " I'm not
going to BS you . I'm going to tell you exactly what I think," the vice president reportedly said. SInce
Republicans in the House and Senate are firmly against the Iran nuclear deal -- announced by President
Barack Obama on Tuesday -- the administration is cranking up its campaign to sway concerned
Democrats to back the agreement. Under legislation that allows Congress to review the agreement, the White House needs to secure enough
votes from members of his own party to sustain the President's promised veto on an resolution of disapproval -- 145 in the House and 34 in the
Senate.
After the session with Biden , several House Democrats stressed that while the process
is just beginning, right now the administration likely has the votes to sustain the President's
veto on a resolution to block the deal. "I'm confident they will like it when they understand it all," the vice
president told reporters on his way into the session, beginning what will be a two month campaign
culminating in a vote, expected in September. Democrats, both for and against the deal, praised Biden's
presentation . "Joe Biden was as good as I've seen him," Rep. John Larson, D-Connecticut, told CNN. "I
thought he did an excellent job." Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar said Biden is a "master of detail"
and helped clarify some concerns he had about the verification provisions in the deal, but he still planned to carefully study it and
said he was undecided. Pascrell also cited the verification issue as a potential sticking point but said he is
leaning 'yes' on the agreement. "On our side of the aisle there is concern and skepticism shared by a number of members but an
openness to be persuaded if the facts take them that way," Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia said. "I think (Biden) made some
real progress on behalf of the administration today." But Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York, a former
member of Democratic leadership, told reporters he wasn't sold yet. "For me, I still have some very significant questions with respect to lifting of
the embargo on conventional arms. And missiles. The (International Atomic Energy Agency) verification process for me is not any time
anywhere, I think there are some very significant delays built into that," Israel said. Larson
noted that both Biden's
presentation, along with Hillary Clinton's a day earlier, who he said spoke favorably about the deal,
helped lay the groundwork for most Democrats to back the White House .
***LINKS
Link Turns Case---Economy
Partisan spats tank the economy – consumer and investor confidence
Harwood 11 {John, Chief Washington Correspondent for CNBC, featured in the New York
Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, Nieman Fellow at Harvard University,
“Partisan Fighting Carries Risks at Election Time,” The New York Times: The Caucus, 9/4,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/hostility-among-voters-as-politics-hurteconomy/#THUR}
ideological battles and partisan maneuvers woven into the fabric of the capital
began to exert their own damaging effect on the economy, analysts from Washington to
Wall Street have concluded. Typically, economic conditions frame the political debate. But in the
fight over raising the federal debt limit, the political debate also influenced economic conditions — and not
for the better. Last week’s unemployment report showing no job growth in August provided new evidence
that the simultaneous erosion of confidence in the economy and in the government has harmed
prospects for American workers and businesses. Thus in the post-Labor Day chapter of divided government, both
parties are playing with this politically combustible material: the hostility of voters who see
them as not merely failing to solve economic problems but, in fact, actively compounding
them. The immediate legislative question is whether rising anxiety can drive Republicans and Democrats toward consensus solutions. So far, there is scant
That is because over the summer, the
evidence of that happening, as the squabble over scheduling the president’s address to Congress made clear. White House advisers say Mr. Obama, exasperated with
Republicans’ refusal to cooperate, is preparing to use his speech on Thursday to fight for an ambitious job-creation proposal costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
But Republicans, ridiculing the idea of another stimulus, show limited interest in bargaining — even on tax-cut ideas they previously backed. Both of those
calculations now involve heightened risks as the 2012 elections approach. The president is in the most conspicuous jeopardy. But Congressional Republicans are
heading into these new skirmishes with their careers on the line, too. Eroding Confidence
What makes political attitudes so
economically consequential now is the role that consumer and business confidence plays in
determining whether the stalled recovery kicks into gear — or slips back into recession. Since the
2008 financial crisis, Americans shaken by job losses, stagnant wages and falling home values have
been borrowing less and spending less. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York calculated this year that this
“deleveraging” has siphoned $480 billion annually from the cash flow of American consumers. No one expects that lost spending to
return. But the more pessimistic consumers feel, the less likely it is that businesses will see profit
in hiring new workers and investing in additional production with the cash now filling their coffers. Research by the
Republican pollster Bill McInturff and his Democratic counterpart Peter Hart for the financial television network CNBC showed that
confidence was weak even before the final negotiations over the debt ceiling last month. By June, just 29
percent of Americans expected their wages to rise in the next year; 50 percent called it a bad time to invest in
the stock market; and 30 percent expected their home values to decrease soon, compared with just 15 percent who
expected an increase. Since then, Mr. McInturff said, the infighting in Washington has eroded consumer
confidence further than economic conditions themselves might have warranted. Mr. Hart
reached the same conclusion in separate research for Citibank that showed Americans with diminishing
expectations for recovery even as their assessment of current conditions remained unchanged since January.
Link Turns Case---Heg
Heightened political polarization makes us look dysfunctional – crushes primacy
and eviscerates allies’ trust
Collinson 13 {Stephen, syndicated White House correspondent, “World Worries Despite
Temporary Truce in Polarized US,” AlterNet, 10/20, http://www.alternet.org/progressivewire/world-worries-despite-temporary-truce-polarized-us#THUR}
The world got a close-up look at US democracy during Washington's debt default showdown, and was
traumatized by what it saw. Foreign commentators branded America "befuddled," and
mocked its "dysfunctional" political system while French newspaper Le Monde bemoaned a
"piteous spectacle " over a just avoided US debt default. The bad news for America's worried friends is that new
stalemates over budgets and borrowing are looming early next year. Foreign angst over the spectacle -- which
saw the far right Republican Tea Party faction try to hold President Barack Obama to ransom -- is understandable. The globalized
economy has world powers chained to America's fate: a US debt default could have caused
mayhem across the planet. Obama warned the showdown diminished US standing and
"encouraged our enemies, it's emboldened our competitors and depressed our
friends ." The two week impasse was sparked when House Republicans tried to make a hike in US borrowing authority conditional on Obama gutting his
Foreigners struggled to understand how an insurgent minority was able to hold
US democracy hostage. Outsiders have often grumbled that a political system of checks and
balances designed 230 years ago is too lumbering for an age where billions of dollars can flee a
nation in a second and nimble developing nations challenge US primacy.
signature health care law.
Link Turns Case---Signal
Link alone turns the entire case’s signal
Norris, 11 (John Norris is the Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding
Initiative. 3/18, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/rising_to_the_occasion.html)
What do our leaders need to do—to the degree that we can influence events—to help guide the region
down the path to democracy and stability instead of chaos? First and foremost , we need to channel the late Republican
Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Ohio, who argued that politics should stop at the water’s edge. In other words, we need to dial
down the partisan sniping here at home. The president and Congress need to work together. If we
The question is:
get it wrong in the Middle East, both parties and the American people will reap that ill reward for years to come. Accordingly, the administration should pull in members of Congress, former national security officials of both parties,
and other foreign policy experts on a regular basis. These should not be briefings but discussions about how best to navigate the incredibly tricky path before us. The administration needs to be less insular in its decision making and
members of Congress need to avoid the cheap thrill of feeding the 24-hour news machine pithy tweets and a steady diet of second guesses. Indeed, it is truly astounding that we may be lurching toward a government shutdown in the
middle of the most important events on the international stage in decades. Members of both parties need to understand full well that the American public will view our politicians as spoiled 12-year-olds if they shutter the government
Is partisan gridlock really the message we want to broadcast to protesters across the Middle East
as they risk their lives fighting for the same freedoms we already enjoy? Second, our strategy needs to be clearly communicated to
at this moment.
the public. It is encouraging that President Barack Obama is taking to the airwaves tonight to explain our military involvement in Libya and our stakes across the region. The president needs to be communicator in chief during this
period and he needs to speak honestly of the risks and rewards as we move forward. At all costs, the administration needs to avoid the trap of thinking that its strategy is too complex to be understood by the general public. If you can’t
explain your strategy, it probably isn’t a good one. By the same token, pundits should stop the ridiculous clamoring for a clearly identified endgame for every move the president makes. We are seeing an entire region in upheaval. We
have seen protests in 21 countries with a population of more than 425 million people stretching across 4,800 miles. Things will be messy and uncertain for some time. Finally, and perhaps most dauntingly, the United States needs to
manage its relationships with several longstanding Middle East allies while not betraying democratic aspirations in these countries. Nations such as Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia have long been key partners in the region but we
cannot let that mute our criticisms of what are highly autocratic systems. The administration realized that reform had gained powerful momentum in both Tunisia and Egypt and that it would be counterproductive to be seen as
defending antidemocratic regimes. The strategic stakes are even higher in a country like Saudi Arabia. But we need to keep the heat on some of our friends to rule far more democratically even when it produces discomfort for all
There
can be no better time for the U nited S tates to demonstrate its own maturity as a democracy by
speaking clearly, listening to a diversity of voices , cooling the partisan rhetoric , and understanding that such historic moments are few and
involved. The Middle East has been hurtled through a period of incredible change during the last three months. Millions of people have marched in the face of armed opposition to speak out and demand their rights.
far between.
***INTERNAL LINKS
Obama Pushing
Huge Obama push for normalization of relations
Crabtree 7/2 {Susan, syndicated politics correspondent for The Hill/Congressional
Quarterly/Roll Call, B.S. in broadcast journalism (University of Southern California), “Obama
ready to fight over U.S. ambassador to Cuba,” The Washington Examiner, 2015,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-ready-to-fight-over-u.s.-ambassador-tocuba/article/2567500#THUR}
appears ready and even eager for a fight over naming the first ambassador to
Cuba in over 50 years, a move that would no doubt further poison his relations with Senate Republicans right
after a thaw with the passage of two key trade bills. After announcing the opening of embassies in Havana and Washington,
the White House signaled Wednesday that i t intends to nominate an ambassador and wouldn't mind
a very public — and undoubtedly intense — debate over the issue. White House spokesman Josh Earnest
said the administration has yet to lay out a timeline for an announcement of an ambassadorial nomination but left
the impression that Obama intended to move forward with one. "I'm confident that [the Senate]
would be a venue for robust debate about how the policy changes that the president announced back in December
aren't just clearly in the best interests of the American people, they're clearly in the best interests of the Cuban people as well," he told
reporters Wednesday traveling with the president on a trip on Air Force One.
President Obama
Massive Obama effort on Cuba
Beatty 7/1 {Andrew, politics correspondent for AFP/Reuters/Economist, B.A. in philosophy
(Queen's University Belfast), “U.S., Cuba Agree to Restore Ties, Embassies to Reopen,” Digital
Journal, 2015, http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/us-proposes-us-cuba-reopenembassies-as-of-july-20-havana/article/437226#THUR}
The United States and Cuba on Wednesday agreed a historic deal to re-establish full diplomatic relations,
severed 54 years ago in the heat of the Cold War. Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro exchanged letters agreeing to
unfreeze ties on July 20, when embassies in Washington and Havana can be reopened. Obama hailed the deal as a "historic
step forward" that would end a failed and archaic US policy of isolating the still Communist-ruled island. Obama -- who was born the year the US
embassy was closed in 1961 -- called on domestic critics to stop "clinging to a policy that was not working."
He pressed the Republican-controlled Congress to end a throttling US trade embargo set up in 1962.
"It's long past time for us to realize that this approach doesn't work," he said in a White House
Rose Garden address. "It hasn't worked for 50 years. It shuts America out of Cuba's future and it only makes life worse for the
Cuban people."
Yes push – actions towards Congress and six months of empirics prove
MercoPress 7/3 {MercoPress – South Atlantic News Agency, “Republicans Anticipate They
Will Not Approve A Us Ambassador to Cuba,” 2015,
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/07/03/republicans-anticipate-they-will-not-approve-a-usambassador-to-cuba#THUR}
Though Obama has not nominated an ambassador for Cuba yet, the current top U.S. diplomat there, Jeffrey
DeLaurentis, was expected to be considered for the post. Labeling the moment “a choice between the future and the past,”
Obama on Wednesday revealed the latest steps in a half-year of rapid-fire improvements in
relations between two nations that lie 90 miles apart but have spent nearly six decades separated by light years diplomatically and economically. Obama
also asked Congress to lift the economic and travel embargoes that the U.S. has used for decades to
try forcing Cuba's leaders toward democracy. Obama has partly eased those restrictions on his own , but even before
McConnell's comments Thursday, longtime opposition from many Republicans and some Democrats had made it unlikely that lawmakers will fully revoke the bans
quickly.
PC High
Obama is killing it – PC high given court rulings
Feffer 7/13 {John, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies,
fellow at the Open Society Foundations, former professor at Sungkonghoe University, “Obama's
Recent Victories: How and Why?” Huffington Post – Politics, 2015,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/obamas-recent-victories-h_b_7786006.html#THUR}
It would have been difficult, after the 2014 elections, to imagine that President Barack Obama could
achieve much of anything in his last two years in office. After all, the opposition Republican Party had taken
control of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections in 2014. The Supreme Court, led by the right-leaning
Chief Justice John Roberts, maintained a narrow conservative majority. And the president's approval
rating had dropped below 50 percent -- in and of itself not so surprising for a president in his second term but a significant
obstacle for a leader hoping to marshal public support for his agenda. And yet here we are , only a few months after the new
Congress took up residence on Capitol Hill, with a suddenly resurgent president . Just in the last few weeks,
President Obama has been scoring a surprising number of domestic and foreign policy victories . His
critics are cowed . The president reached a 50 percent public approval rating for the first time
since May 2013 . In recent weeks, the Supreme Court gave the president a clear victory on the
A ffordable C are A ct, a piece of legislation on which the Republican Party has loudly declared war. Whatever the flaws of "Obamacare,"
the extension of health care benefits to millions of the uninsured will go down as a signature legacy of
the Obama administration . The administration was slow to get behind same-sex marriage (and it
was Vice President Joe Biden who first endorsed the movement back in May 2012). But eventually, the president acknowledged
that his position on the issue had "evolved," and threw his support behind this important
expansion of human rights. "We have made our union a little more perfect," the president said
after the Supreme Court extended the right to same-sex marriage to all 50 states.
PC high – Laundry list of non-legislative victories and approval rating spike proves
Cannon 7/5 {Carl M, Washington Bureau Chief of RealClearPolitics, past recipient of the
Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize for Distinguished Reporting and the Aldo Beckman Award,
former fellow-in-residence at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, “How Obama Can Build
on His Winning Streak,” 2015,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/05/how_obama_can_build_on_his_winning_st
reak_127225.html#THUR}
With apologies to Judith Viorst, the nearly two
weeks leading up to the July 4 weekend might be called President
Obama’s wonderful, remarkable, not at all bad, very good fortnight. It started in Congress on
Wednesday, June 24, when enough Democrats joined Republican proponents to give the president sweeping “fast-track” authority to negotiate
pacts with America’s Pacific Basin trading partners. The next day, just across the street from the Capitol, the
Supreme Court
dispensed with the last serious constitutional challenge to Obamacare. The day after that, the court
affirmed the administration’s legal position in a 5-4 decision establishing gay marriage as the
law of the land. When the marriage decision was announced, the president was in Charleston, S.C.,
at Emanuel A.M.E. Church where he gave an impassioned eulogy for nine murdered African-American parishioners before
leading the congregation in a rendition of “Amazing Grace,” which he began a cappella. It was an extraordinary scene , and
reminded millions of Americans of the Barack Obama they voted for in 2008. Although one snarky former
White House aide issued a snide tweet criticizing South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for previously supporting the Confederate flag, Obama
himself sat beside Haley in church and praised her from the pulpit for her leadership on the issue. Obama
returned home Friday night
to see the White House bathed— per his orders —in the rainbow colors of the gay pride
movement. Asked days later about his winning streak at an East Room press conference, Obama merely
acknowledged his “ gratifying” week, but mentioned other blessed weeks in his life, including the one in which he’d married
Michelle—and the times when his daughters were born. Obama also playfully mentioned scoring 27 points in a high school basketball game,
there was no denying his string of successes . The
American people noticed. Obama’s job approval rating in CNN’s poll topped 50 percent for the first
time in a while. So why didn’t he spike the ball and do an end-zone dance? Several reasons, it seems to me.
although he may have been poking fun at himself. Or not. But
PC Key
Obama’s push is working but needs to continue – isolates public support and curries
favor
Feffer 7/13 {John, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies,
fellow at the Open Society Foundations, former professor at Sungkonghoe University, “Obama's
Recent Victories: How and Why?” Huffington Post – Politics, 2015,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/obamas-recent-victories-h_b_7786006.html#THUR}
There's also the rapprochement with Cuba, which the Obama administration has accelerated over
the last few months . The two countries have just announced the exchange of embassies -- the first time in more
than 50 years. Ferries will soon be running between the two countries. U.S. tourists have already begun to pour into Cuba. Still, numerous obstacles remain, including
the economic embargo that Republicans in Congress insist on keeping in place. These opponents are beginning to sound like they're
stuck in the 20th century. Obama once spoke of "purple America." In his speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, he dismissed the notion that the United States
could be neatly sliced and diced into "red states" (conservatives) and "blue states" (liberals). Coming into office in 2008, he imagined that he could revive bipartisanship and build an enduring
consensus for his political, economic and foreign policies. That has been his signal failure as a politician. He was unable to enlist the support of his political opponents. Most of his domestic
programs -- such as health care -- received almost no support from the Republican Party. And he has pursued his more diplomatic foreign policy despite the often overwhelmingly hostile
the president has learned an important lesson.
He can win on these key issues when U.S. public opinion goes his way. Polls have shown that the
American public supports Obamacare, gay marriage and rapprochement with Iran and Cuba. The president has been
able to score these late victories not by working with the opposition but by isolating it. Ordinarily,
opposition of the Republican Party (not to mention quite a few hawkish Democrats as well). In this way,
the discrepancy between public opinion and the platform of the majority party in Congress should force a shift in the political landscape. To win in the next presidential election in 2016, the
Republican Party might be expected to move to the center to appeal to independents and more hawkish Democrats. But the Republican Party candidates for presidents are by and large more
Obama is not a radical. He generally situates
himself in the political center, espouses a rhetorically impressive but rather narrow pragmatism and has
mostly avoided economic populism. He has curried favor with the Pentagon, with Wall Street, with
pharmaceutical companies. It is a sign of how far to the right America drifted during the George W. Bush era (and, indeed, during the preceding Clinton years) that
conservative than even the most recent choices (Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008). President
Obama's centrist agenda has elicited such a strong reaction from his opponents both inside and outside Congress. It is also a sign of Obama's centrism that most of the Democratic candidates for
What begins as heresy often very quickly becomes
conventional wisdom . Such is the path that gay marriage, national health care and rapprochement with Cuba
have taken . But Obama has succeeded only because public opinion is behind him on these issues. The
candidates who hope to replace him should take note. The next American president could win on a number of issues that provoke the ire of
president are running to his left, particularly on economic issues.
conservatives, but have broad public appeal: seriously addressing climate change, reining in military spending, enacting immigration reform, stabilizing Social Security and securing a living
wage for workers nationwide.
But why wait until 2016? Obama might even get the ball rolling on
these issues
in the next two years
. After all, he's on a roll himself.
Obama PC key – spurs discussions, allows debate against the opponents, rallies
lawmakers, finds common ground between rivals, and manages fundamental issues – it’s
especially important for Corker, who is key
Carney 7/3 {Jordain, B.A. in Journalism, English and Political Science with a Minor in Legal
Studies (University of Arkansas at Fayetteville), syndicated politics reporter, “Obama Heads for
Showdown over Cuba Embassy,” The Hill, 2015, http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/senate/246817-obama-heads-for-showdown-over-cuba-embassy#THUR}
Obama is heading for a showdown with Congress after announcing plans to reopen the
U.S. embassy in Cuba. The administration's move is part of a months-long discussion between
the two countries to normalize relations that could hand Obama a needed foreign policy win, but
President
only if he can get lawmakers on board. But that could be an impossible task. While the administration
can reopen the embassy without Congress signing off, they’ll need lawmakers to help approve an
ambassador, fund the embassy, and lift a decades-old embargo. Congressional Republicans, and
some Democrats, are already plotting to block the administration’s efforts, suggesting that Obama is going easy on a
dictatorial regime. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called the decision to reopen the embassy the latest example of Obama’s
“appeasement of dictators.” The Arkansas Republican is planning to work with his Senate colleagues to block funding for an embassy and vote
against a potential ambassador “until there is real, fundamental change that gives hope to the oppressed people of Cuba.” He could find an ally across
the aisle in Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been a vocal critic of Obama’s policy. The Cuban-American senator said Obama’s decision “is not in
our national interest.” “An already one-sided deal that benefits the Cuban regime is becoming all the more lopsided,” he added. "The message is democracy and
human rights take a back seat to a legacy initiative.” Across the Capitol, Republican leadership also opposes Obama’s Cuba moves, with House Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio) saying that “relations with the Castro regime should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until Cubans enjoy freedom – and not one second sooner.” The
congressional opposition is hardly new. House lawmakers agreed in a 247-176 vote last month to keep the
current restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba in place, effectively blocking rules issued earlier this year to make traveling easier."
The House is also using its spending bills to try to torpedo Obama’s efforts. A bill to fund the State Department would prohibit funds from being used to build a new
Despite the
congressional backlash , administration officials are adamant that it would be a mistake for
lawmakers to block Obama’s efforts, and suggest they could find common ground . A senior
State Department official said that a decision by lawmakers to fight the president’s policy would be counterproductive. “It would be a shame if
embassy. The administration has requested approximately $6 million to improve its current building there and convert it to a working embassy.
Congress impeded implementation of some of the very things that we think they – we all agree we want to do, such as better outreach to the Cuban people all over the
These are the kinds of things that we can do as we move forward in this relationship
And I would assume that most on the Hill agree those are a good thing to do.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that while he hasn’t “done any whip counts, but I do
think that there is, at minimum, strong support in the United States Congress... for lifting the embargo on
Cuba.” And the administration isn’t without allies across the aisle as it prepares to sell
lawmakers. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has said “it’s long past time” to change the country’s policy on Cuba.
Meanwhile, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) called Obama’s announcement “a step in the right direction,” but added
that “ fundamental issues must be addressed by its government before our two nations can establish the bilateral relationship they
are capable of achieving.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, offered a more measured
response, saying that he will "continue to carefully evaluate the most appropriate way forward for
the U.S.-Cuba relationship." The Tennessee Republican suggested late last year that the Cuban embargo hasn’t been
effective, but said in a statement provided to The Hill that “we still have yet to see any significant actions by the
Castro regime that will benefit the U nited S tates or enhance freedoms and circumstances for the Cuban people.” As Foreign
Relations Chairman, Corker has wide sway over whether or not a nominee to be the U.S.
ambassador to Cuba gets a confirmation hearing or a vote. The administration could also have an
unlikely ally in Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who has been silent on Cuba since Obama’s announcement. The 2016 presidential candidate got in a Twitter
skirmish late last year with Sen. Marco Rubio, who is also running for president, over the Florida Republican’s support for the embargo. At one point,
Paul tweeted, “The United States trades and engages with other communist nations, such as China and Vietnam. So @marcorubio why not Cuba?”
island or additional,” the official said. “
with a more robust embassy.
***IMPACTS
Top Level---A2: Status Quo Solves
Status quo lacks normalized relations – Congressional action key
Goodman citing Lee 7/9 {Amy, award-winning syndicated politics columnist, B.S. in
anthropology (Radcliffe College), Barbara Lee is a U.S. Representative (California), “Next Steps
on Cuba: Rep. Lee Pushes for End to Embargo and US Travel Restrictions” Truth Out, 2015,
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31798-next-steps-on-cuba-rep-lee-pushes-for-end-toembargo-and-us-travel-restrictions#THUR}
Secondly, just in terms of normal trade relations, to be able to do business. Currently,
under the recent executive orders
and prior executive orders, there are some industries that can do business in Cuba. For instance, we
can sell medicine and agricultural products to Cuba. But normal trade relations just don't
exist . There's an embargo. And so, we have to pass legislation that would lift the sanctions and lift the
embargo against Cuba, so that we can engage in normal financial and trade transactions . And let me
just say, Amy, once that is done, there have been enough businesses, the Chamber of Commerces,
all—many economic organizations have shown that we would create economic growth in this
country, as well as create jobs in America, if in fact we had normal trade relations with Cuba .
And so, there are two bills—there's a bill that would actually do just that, that Congressman Charlie Rangel is leading on,
and I'm a co-sponsor of that. And so, I hope the people listening to this interview would call their members of
Congress and tell them to—tell their members to sign on as co-sponsors, and let's get these bills passed so
that we can have just normal trade and diplomatic relations between the U nited S tates and Cuba.
It's to the benefit of the Cuban people and the American people.
Terror---A2: No IL---Cartels Key
Cartels key – safe haven and force-multiplier
Bartell 12 (et al; Dawn L. Bartell, Norwich University, Masters of Diplomacy, School of
Graduate Studies – “Hezbollah and Al Shabaab in Mexico and the Terrorist Threat to the United
States” – Global Security Studies, Fall 2012, Volume 3, Issue 4 –
http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Bartell%20Hezbollah%20and%20Al%20Shabaab%20in%20Me
xico.pdf)
Hezbollah and Al Shabaab have been discovered to have a footprint in Mexico, are receiving Mexican language and cultural
assimilation training, have been discovered to have a relationship of convenience with the Mexican drug
cartels, and have been smuggling their operatives into the United States to raise money and to recruit members to
their cause. With raising tensions between the U.S. and Iran, Iran has stated that it currently has the ability to reach out and target the U.S. on U.S.
soil. Since it is unlikely Iran will send military troops to the U.S. and lacks
the capacity to strike the U.S. with an
Hezbollah residing in Mexico Iran could use Hezbollah as a proxy to
strike targets within the United States. With Al Shabaab aligning itself with al Qaeda, residing in
Mexico, and successfully smuggling operatives into the U.S. This provides a force multiplier and an
established strategic cell structure for al Qaeda to reside near and within the U.S. and target the U.S. on U.S.
soil. Therefore, Hezbollah and Al Shabaab residing in Mexico pose a direct terrorist threat to
the United States . There is a growing terrorist security threat to the United States because Hezbollah
and Al Shabaab have established a footprint in Mexico and have been successful in using Mexico
as a safe haven and as a transit area to smuggle weapons and terrorist operatives into the United States. There are several reasons why
intercontinental ballistic missile, with
Hezbollah staging itself in Mexico presents a direct threat to the United States. First, Iran is Hezbollah’s number one sponsor state, which
presents a threat to the United States because Iran
has been known to use Hezbollah as a proxy entity to strike
targets of interest for Iran. Second, Hezbollah’s anti-Israeli goals make the United States and its
interests a legitimate target in Hezbollah’s opinion since the United States is a supporter of the state
of Israel. Third, Hezbollah’s relationship with Mexico’s drug cartels presents a threat to the United States because the drug cartels
are a force multiplier for Hezbollah . The Mexican drug cartels have facilitated the acquisition of
weapons and weapon components and the smuggling of weapons, weapon components, and Hezbollah operatives into
the United States. These smuggling operations place Hezbollah terrorists and the resources they need to carry out terrorist operations within
the borders of the United States. And fourth, the potential of Hezbollah establishing itself in Mexico gives Hezbollah safe haven within close
proximity to the United States. This
makes it easier for Hezbollah to plan and stage terrorist operations against the
United States.
Cartels crucial to Hezbollah strikes on US.
Bartell 12 (et al; Dawn L. Bartell, Norwich University, Masters of Diplomacy, School of
Graduate Studies – “Hezbollah and Al Shabaab in Mexico and the Terrorist Threat to the United
States” – Global Security Studies, Fall 2012, Volume 3, Issue 4 –
http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Bartell%20Hezbollah%20and%20Al%20Shabaab%20in%20Me
xico.pdf)
Furthering Hezbollah’s success as an international terrorist group in North America is Hezbollah’s efforts to
establish a relationship with Mexico’s drug cartels. “Michael Braun, a former chief of operations at the Drug Enforcement Agency, said
Hezbollah had developed relationships with the powerful Mexican drug cartels to move their agenda forward” (New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and
Hezbollah, in establishing this relationship with Mexican drug cartels, has set itself
up to take advantage of the well-established criminal transportation and smuggling routes between Mexico and the United
Emergency Management, 2012).
States. Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez summed it up this way: “I dare to say that at any given time, daytime or nighttime, one can get on a boat and traverse back and forth
between Texas and Mexico and not get caught. If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20 to 30 persons at one time,
one can just imagine how easy it would be to bring in 2 to 3 terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the
river and not be detected. Chances of apprehension are very slim.” (McCaul, 2006) The danger in this is it increases the ability of
Hezbollah to plan, set up, and conduct terrorist operations from Mexico against targets in the United States.
Hezbollah-Cartel ties vital to strikes against the US
Pounds 14 Keith Pounds is president and CEO of Countercon – a Counterterrorism consulting
company that provides consultations, inspections and training to companies and private groups.
He previously served as a medic with the U.S. Navy and with the Marines. He holds an MBA
with a concentration in organizational psychology. “Our Greatest Terrorism Threat is not The
Middle East” – Prepper Journal – June 3rd –
http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2014/06/03/greatest-terrorism-threat-middle-east/
As source put it, “terrorist attacks are much greater threats to hemispheric security than are conflicts between (nations)… terrorism is alive and well in the Americas
and operating in different guises. Ungoverned spaces, porous borders, weak institutions, uncooperative regimes, and widespread corruption compound the problem.”
MEXICO By the 2000s, drug violence in Mexico included the assassinations of several police officials and even the head of Mexico City’s police department. It is no
Growing evidence shows that Hezbollah
has a very close relationship with Mexican drug cartels, including benefitting from their
smuggling routes into the U.S. On October 10, 2001, a group of ten terrorists belonging to a Lebanese Hezbollah cell were intercepted in Mexico City
secret that both drugs and violence originating in Mexico have already spilled into the U.S.
on their way to carry out a dual-pronged attack to assassinate (then) Mexican President Vicente Fox and attack the Mexican Senate. Reports are that they made their
way to Mexico by way of the TBA. In 2007, Mohsen Rabbani – who masterminded Hezbollah’s attacks in Argentina in the 1990s – assisted in the failed plot to bomb
New York’s JFK airport. In April 2009, Jamal Yousef – a former member of the Syrian military and senior agent of Hezbollah – was arrested in New York accused of
acquiring U.S. arms stolen from U.S. forces in Iraq. The charges were that he was engaged in dealings with FARC to exchange the arms for drugs which would be
carried into the U.S. by Mexican drug smugglers. It was later discovered that Yousef had a cache of some 100 M-16 rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 grenades, C4
explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and anti-tank weaponry, stored in Mexico. It was also discovered that Hezbollah in Mexico had been conducting explosives
training for members of Mexican drug cartels. In July 2010, Moussa Ali Hamden – a naturalized American citizen and known Hezbollah operative – was arrested in
Mexico and indicted for passport fraud, counterfeiting, and financing weapons smuggling between the U.S. and Syria, including plans to smuggle 1,200 Americamanufactured Colt M4 rifles to the Middle East. A report in 2010 noted that, Al “Jamal” Basie – a Mexican national of Lebanese descent – was arrested in Tijuana.
Interestingly, the source was a Kuwaiti news report, but both Mexican and U.S. officials would not confirm the report. In 2011, Iran attempted to hire what it thought
was a Mexican drug trafficker to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C. The would-be assassin turned out to be a U.S. undercover agent. In
September 2012, Raffic Labboun – a Lebanese naturalized U.S. citizen who attended the University of California, received a degree in Mathematics and was
considered to be the San Francisco Bay Area Hezbollah leader – was arrested in Mexico for committing some $102,000 in bank fraud. Multiple open source accounts
show the growing use of Improvised Explosives Devices (IEDs) among Mexican drug cartels, which they had not previously used to any significant degree. This new
IED tactic among Mexican cartels is directly credited to the interaction between Hezbollah and Mexican drug cartels as Hezbollah is well known for its perfection in
Hezbollah members have actively recruited Mexican nationals to set up Latin American networks to
attack Israeli and American interests and Hezbollah operatives have already been placed in the drug
smuggling corridors on the U.S./Mexican border. INTO THE UNITED STATES Cigarettes “are the most profitable of the
the use of IEDs.
smuggled goods in the TBA” and “account for 20% of the world’s cigarette market.” Smuggling routes from Ciudad del Este reach “north to the U.S.’s East Coast and
Indian reservations in the American southwest” and across the Atlantic to Europe. South America’s drug networks – very substantially involving Hezbollah – have
Hezbollah’s wing of drug smuggling has
partnered with Mexican drug cartels using Mexican smuggling routes into the U.S. While perhaps not
expanded into Venezuela, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica and Mexico, and
inherently Hezbollah-related, in 2006 two Trinidad and Tobago citizens were jailed in Canada for being involved in acts of terrorism. Both subjects were believed to
belong to the Pakistani-based terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra – the parent organization of Muslims of America (which has a compound in York, S.C. and some 22
other sites across the U.S.). In one investigation in the Carolinas that began in 2009, Nasser Alquza – from the Central Mosque in Charleston, linked to the Muslim
Brotherhood – was found to have links to cigarette smuggling, buying cigarettes below market price then selling them in other states to avoid paying taxes. Along with
ten others – including members from Charlotte, N.C. – he paid $7.5 million to an undercover government agent for almost 7,000 boxes of cigarettes, which would
have sold for over $15 million. The group used legitimate businesses to hide the money. In 2011, Mohammed Yousef Hammoud – dispatched by Hezbollah to
Charlotte when he was 21 years old, and lived in the U.S. by way of three sham marriages – was sentenced to 30 years for providing material support to Hezbollah, as
well as conspiracy, cigarette smuggling, money laundering and immigration fraud. Lastly, law enforcement officials are reporting an increase in Hezbollahsympathetic tattoos among prison inmates in the southwestern U.S. CONCLUSIONS The prominence of drug activity and violence in Mexico and the TBA has
Hezbollah, FARC and Mexican drug cartels
have formed tripartite partnerships to send drugs north into the U.S. in exchange for weapons –
some of which are sent to the Middle East. As a result, Hezbollah has access to Mexican drug
smuggling routes into the U.S. and both Mexican and South American drug cartels have acquired
expertise in Hezbollah bomb making applications and deployment. The ramification, of course,
is that Hezbollah – and its parent Iran – is poised to insert Mexican drug runners and its own
operatives into the U.S. with car bomb and IED expertise. This occurs as Inspire magazine – Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s
English-language magazine targeted specifically at U.S. audiences – has very recently called on “Lone Wolf” attackers and
small groups in the U.S. to independently construct their own bombs and attack targets in the
occurred simultaneously with the increased infiltration of Hezbollah in Latin America.
U.S. Equally important is that the Muslim extremist/Latin American drug cartel relationships allow Iran a direct
avenue of approach to U.S. targets, should it feel the need to use them.
Terror---A2: No IL---Cuba C/N Fails
Cuba-U.S. cooperation solves massive terror threats
Lee 9 {Rens, Ph.D. (Stanford), president of Global Advisory Services, “Cuba, Drugs, and U.S.Cuban Relations,” April, Foreign Policy Research Institute,
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2009/04/cuba-drugs-and-us-cuban-relations#THUR}
Now on
the foreign policy front: looking back in time, narcotics-trafficking was a focal point of conflict
in U.S.-Cuban relations for most of the pre-1990 years, except for a brief period during the Carter administration.
The focus gradually shifted to cooperation in the 1990s, as the Cuban leadership ostensibly
severed connections to the international drug trade . Cooperation and information-sharing
between the two countries have netted a few high profile seizures, arrests, and extraditions, but all
of this has occurred rather episodically, without an umbrella agreement on counter-narcotics
cooperation, (although Cuba has concluded such agreements with many other countries inside and outside the hemisphere). Such an
agreed framework could set the stage for a more substantive level of engagement on drugs. For
example, we could train and equip Cuban Border Guards and Interior Ministry operatives, we could
conduct joint naval patrols with Cuba in the western Caribbean, we could coordinate investigation of regional
trafficking networks and suspicious financial transactions through Cuban banks and commercial entities, and we could station
DEA and FBI contingents in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. We could also negotiate a ship-rider
agreement with the Cuban authorities, and possibly even the right to pursue drug-laden vessels
and aircraft seeking safe haven in Cuban territory. How far Havana and Washington would be
willing to proceed in these directions is unclear, since the political barriers on both sides are formidable.
Yet the prospects for more productive collaboration against the hemispheric drug threat seem
a lot more promising today than in the past. In any event, failure to exploit Cuba's law
enforcement and intelligence assets to good advantage leaves a major gap in U.S. defenses
against drug trafficking through the Caribbean. Interdiction successes n Mexico seem likely to
augment this flow down the road, a further reason to closely monitor trafficking trends in a Caribbean
country only 90 miles from U.S. shores. The drug threat from Cuba seems destined to increase
as the Castro regime's revolutionary order loses its hold and appeal, as the island's economic ties with the outside world
continue to expand, and as criminally-inclined Cuban nationals seek alliances with South
American and Mexican drug kingpins. Such an outcome is hardly in the best interests of
the United States and other countries in the hemisphere .
Terror---A2: No IL---No Cuba/US Cooperation
Cuba says yes – allows crucial cooperation
Lee 9 {Rens, Ph.D. (Stanford), president of Global Advisory Services, “Cuba, Drugs, and U.S.Cuban Relations,” April, Foreign Policy Research Institute,
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2009/04/cuba-drugs-and-us-cuban-relations#THUR}
U nited S tates and Cuba have a strong mutual interest in closing off trafficking routes in the western
by Mexican and South American cocaine mafias to set up shop in
Cuba proper. Yet they have not entered into a formal agreement to fight drugs – even though Havana maintains such
agreements with at least 32 other countries – and what cooperation exists occurs episodically , on a case-by-case
basis. Washington and Havana need to engage more fully on the issue, deploying
intelligence and interdiction assets to disrupt smuggling networks through and around Cuba. Washington
hitherto has shied away from a deeper relationship, fearing that it would lead to a political opening and
confer a measure of legitimacy on the Castro regime. Yet current strategic realities in the region and
Havana's own willingness to engage in such a relationship, as well as impending leadership changes in
Cuba, argue for rethinking these concerns , even in the absence of formal diplomatic ties.
The
Caribbean and in preventing attempts
Terror---A2: No Attacks---General
Unchecked cartels cause nuclear terror against the US – means AND motives
AI 11 [Analysis Intelligence, “Iron Triangle of Terror: Iran, Hezbollah and Los Zetas,” 12/19,
http://analysisintelligence.com/intelligence-analysis/iron-triangle-of-terror-iran-hezbollah-andlos-zetas/]
the strengthening relationship between Iran and Venezuela has increased
Hezbollah’s influence in the region. Both leaders are staunchly anti-American, and it is
reasonable to think that they would pursue activities that would undermine US interests. Roger Noreiga,
Some sources have said that
the same official that warned of an attack by Hezbollah, indicates that Venezuela, “has allowed Iran to mine uranium” and that Venezuela’s Margarita Island has
Iran is
suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapon while simultaneously funding Hezbollah close to the US
border. Therefore, there major concerns that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon it might share the weapon with
Hezbollah. There are two major Hezbollah networks operating in the Americas under the
direction of the Iranian Quds Force. The first is the Nassereddine network, operated by a former Lebanese citizen that became a Venezuelan
eclipsed the infamous TBA as the principal safe haven and center of Hezbollah operations in the Americas”. This is particularly disturbing as
and is now the second-ranking diplomatic official to Syria. He currently resides on Margarita Island and runs money laundering operations for the group. The other
network is purportedly run by Hojjat al-Eslam Mohsen Rabbani, a culutral attaché from Iran who is involved in various recruitment activities and frequently travels
back to the cartels.
Why is the link between Hezbollah and Los Zetas so important? The main concern is that if
Hezbollah and Los Zetas are cooperating on drugs (which they are to the tune of hundreds of
millions), then why would they not cooperate on weapons? Hezbollah and other extremists may
be willing to export their knowledge of IEDs to the cartels. The relationship between Hezbollah
and Los Zetas appears to have already expanded beyond drugs. In October 2011, the US authorities
revealed that there was an attempt made by Iran to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on US soil.
under false papers in Latin America. The two networks together make up the majority of Hezbollah’s activity in the Americas. Now
Yes nuclear terror – means and motives
Neeley 13 (Meggaen, research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues at Heritage, “Doubting
Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism,” March 21, http://csis.org/blog/doubting-deterrence-nuclearterrorism)
The risk that terrorists will set off a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil is disconcertingly high . While
a terrorist organization may experience difficulty constructing nuclear weapons facilities, there is
significant concern that terrorists can obtain a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials. The fear that an
actor could steal a nuclear weapon or fissile material and transport it to the United States has long-existed. It takes a great amount of time and
resources (including territory) to construct centrifuges and reactors to build a nuclear weapon from scratch. Relatively
easilytransportable nuclear weapons, however, present one opportunity to terrorists. For example,
exercises similar to the recent Russian movement of nuclear weapons from munitions depots to
storage sites may prove attractive targets. Loose nuclear materials pose a second opportunity.
Terrorists could use them to create a crude nuclear weapon similar to the gun-type design of Little Boy. Its
simplicity – two subcritical masses of highly-enriched uranium – may make it attractive to
terrorists. While such a weapon might not produce the immediate destruction seen at Hiroshima, the radioactive fall-out and
psychological effects would still be damaging. These two opportunities for terrorists differ from concerns about a “dirty
bomb,” which mixes radioactive material with conventional explosives. According to Gary Ackerman of the National Consortium for the Study
of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, the number of terrorist organizations that would detonate a nuclear weapon is probably small. Few
terrorist organizations have the ideology that would motivate nuclear weapons acquisition. Before we breathe a sigh of relief, we should
recognize that this only increases the “signal-to-noise ratio”: many terrorists might claim to want to detonate a nuclear weapon, but the United
States must find and prevent the small number of groups that actually would. Transportable
nuclear weapons and loose
fissile materials grant opportunities to terrorists with nuclear pursuits. How should the United States seek to
undercut the efforts of the select few with a nuclear intent?
Terror---A2: No Attacks---Yes Material
Nuclear fuel is vulnerable to theft – even if high grade is hard to steal low grade
material can easily be manipulated
Bunn 6(Matthew, Senior research associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University s John F Kennedy School of
Government, “Terrorist Nuclear Weapon Construction: How Difficult?” September,
http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/pdfplus/25097844.pdf?acceptTC=true)
Terrorists might attempt to steal such items themselves or to
purchase them from others who have done so. Unfortunately, world stockpiles of separated plutonium
and HEU now amount to more than twenty-three hundred tons (Albright and Kramer 2005) enough for more
than two hundred thousand nuclear bombs and these materials exist in hundreds of buildings in
more than forty countries, under security arrangements ranging from excellent to appalling (Bunn
2002). The International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA; 2005) has documented eighteen cases of seizure of stolen plutonium
or HEU that have been confirmed by the states concerned; the obvious question is how many more thefts have not
been detected. The form of material most useful for constructing a nuclear bomb is pure HEU or plutonium metal. A terrorist group relying on stolen nuclear
material, however, might well find that what it acquires is in a different form. Nuclear material in oxide form (as is commonly used in the
nuclear industry) can be used directly in nuclear explosives without conversion to metal, but much larger quan tities
are required. Alternatively, chemical processes for converting either pluto nium oxide or uranium oxide to
metal have been widely published and are not unduly complex. Nevertheless, such conversion would be an additional
hurdle for terrorists to clear. Another quite plausible form in which terrorists might acquire nuclear mate rial
is in the form of research reactor fuel containing HEU. The U.S. Department of Energy has compiled data indicating that 128
Stockpiles adequately from theft (Bunn 2006 [this volume]).
research reactors or associated facilities worldwide hold twenty kilograms or more of HEU (U.S. Congress 2004, 28). Unlike the massive fuel assemblies used in most
research reactor fuels are typically found in fuel elements that are
small and easy to handle often less than a meter long, several centimeters across, and weighing a few kilograms. While many types of research
power reactors (which usu ally contain only LEU),
reactor fuel exist (including, in some cases, weapon-grade HEU metal), a common fuel is a mixture of uranium and alu minum, with aluminum cladding. To separate
the uranium from the aluminum, such fuel could be cut into pieces, dissolved in acid, and the uranium separated from the resulting solution by well-known processes.
Converting the chemical forms of uranium that would be recovered by these means to metal would also involve straightforward processes, all of which are published
in the open literature and equire only modest commercially available equipment. Hence, while the need for such processing would require an additional set of
it would probably not pose an insurmountable challenge to terrorist groups. It is worth
chemistry involved in converting opium poppies to heroin an industry with which al Qaeda reportedly has
substantial connections is probably roughly as complex as the chemistry required to separate uranium from
research reactor fuel, and because ofthe toxicity of airborne heroin, primitive glove boxes of the kind that might be used to handle nuclear material are
sometimes used in the illegal narcotics industry as well. Even "spent" research reactor fuel poses a serious proliferation
threat; irradiated research reactor fuels usually remain very highly enriched, and most are not radioactive enough
expertise and equipment,
noting that the
to prevent them from being stolen and processed for bomb material (Bunn and Wier 2004, 37). This stands in stark contrast to spent fuel from nuclear power reactors;
while such fuel contains some plutonium, the massive, intensely radioactive fuel assemblies would be extremely difficult to steal and process to recover plutonium.
Spent power reactor fuel poses more of a sab otage than theft threat.
Materials are easy – theft or purchase
Montgomery 9 (Brad, research fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
“Nuclear Terrorism Assessing the Threat, Developing a Response”)
Finally, there
is the possibility that a group could purchase fissile material on the black market or
steal it from a military or civilian facility and then use that material to construct an improvised nuclear
device. In recent years, analysts have increasingly come to view this scenario as the most plausible route for
terrorists seeking nuclear weapons, for two main reasons. First, large stockpiles of fissile material can be
found throughout the world in military as well as civilian facilities, some of which are in- adequately
monitored and protected. Second, building a crude nuclear device once a sufficient amount of this material has been
obtained, although not an easy task, is certainly within the realm of possibility. Here, the principal challenge for terrorists
would involve the tradeoff between the quantity of fissile material required for a weap- on and the type of weapon that could be built. That is to
say, while a gun-type nuclear weapon would be relatively easy to build, it requires a significant amount of highly enriched uranium; conversely,
far less uranium or a very small amount of plutonium would be needed to fuel an implosion weapon, but building this device would prove
extremely difficult. Nevertheless,
this threat remains particularly salient.
Terror---A2: No Attacks---Yes Means
Threat is high. Nuclear terrorists have multiple means and will detonate in the U.S.
Wilson 10 (Valeria Plame, Fellow – Santa Fe Institute and Former Covert CIA Operative
Specializing in Nuclear Terrorism, “Nuclear Terrorism Is Most Urgent Threat”, CNN, 4-8,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/08/plame.wilson.nuclear.danger/index.html)
But I did not lose my belief that the danger of nuclear terrorism was the most urgent threat we face. Nor did I
lose my passion for working, albeit in a new way, to address that threat. I am working on this issue now as part of the international Global Zero
movement, in which political, military and faith leaders, experts and activists strive for the worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons. We
know that terrorist
groups have been trying to buy, build or steal a bomb. In the past two decades,
there have been at least 25 instances of nuclear explosive materials being lost or stolen. There is
enough highly enriched uranium, or HEU, in the world today to build more than 100,000 bombs. Terrorists looking to buy or
steal HEU could look to the approximately 40 countries with nuclear weapons materials. And then there are rogue
individuals out there who are running black markets selling nuclear materials and technology. Pakistan's Dr. A. Q. Khan
did it for years before my group at the CIA brought him down in December 2003 after catching him red-handed selling a full-scale nuclear
bomb to Moammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya. If terrorists manage to get their hands on enough HEU, they could smuggle it into
a target city, build a bomb and explode it. A hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium could fit in a shoebox, and 100,000
shipping containers come into the U nited S tates every day.
There’s a massive threat – litany of vulnerabilities, expert testimony, constant theft
Dahl 13 (Fredrik, Reuters, covers mainly nuclear-related issues, including Iran's dispute with
the West over its atomic plans. I previously worked in Tehran, Iran, between 2007-2010, and
have also been posted to Belgrade, Sarajevo, London, Brussels, Helsinki and Stockholm during
two decades with Reuters, 7/1/2013, "Governments warn about nuclear terrorism threat",
www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/us-nuclear-security-idUSBRE96010E20130701)
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---A2: No Attacks---Yes Motive
Threat’s high --- attacks coming
Defence Journal 12 (Ashfaq Ahmed and Saima Kausar, Defence Journal, 9/30, lexis)
terrorists' intentions to acquire nuclear material. We are thus living with the modern
day nightmare of the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Among non- state actors Al Qaeda is considered to be the most aspirant
organization which has used resources and made foiled attempts to acquire nuclear weapon/material and use it. Analysts fears that hostile states
namely Iran and North Korea would provide nuclear material to terrorists to use it against their enemies. Despite the fact international
community realized the threat of nuclear terrorism in 1990s, IAEA has registered 800 cases, since end of the Cold War to 2010, wherein
radioactive material was either missing or it was taken into possession by smugglers. As all roads of terrorist activities are
linked with Pakistan, this country can face serious problems if terrorists succeeds in their attempts. Several terrorist organizations and non- state actors across the
globe have expressed their resolve to acquire Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear ( CBRN) material. Among these terrorists organizations
International community is aware of the
Al Qaeda has made multiple attempts and expressed its determination to obtain nuclear material. Prosecution witness Jamal Ahmad Al Fadl quit Al Qaeda in 1996 and assisted Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Fadl while recording his statement in court claimed that in late 1993 or early 1994 Al Qaeda made an attempt to acquire
uranium worth $ 1.5 million. Amount was paid to former Sudanese president Saleh Mobruk. In post 9/11 era many feared that terrorists would acquire WMD and use it against their enemies and
enemy allies. In 1998 Al Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden declared, "it is his duty to obtain WMD."Al Qaeda senior leadership in pre 9/11 era pursued strategy to acquire nuclear and biological
Non-state actors
pursued first use policy
weapons.
particularly Bin Laden and his followers
and to use these weapons after getting their hold on these
weapons against their enemies or their allies anywhere in the world. Bin Laden initiated his fight against US believing it a holy war between Muslims and Christen-Jews Crusaders, to change the
status quo in international system. He thought once the status quo is changed overall conditions would be conducive for the organizations to overthrow the apostate regimes/governments in
Islamic states and Islamic Caliphate would be restored. In order to inflict massive harm to its enemies Al Qaeda's strategy is focused on acquiring "strategic weapons." "Documents seized in
Afghan training camps in late 2001 also indicate a rudimentary understanding of nuclear fission devices." Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, mastermind of 9/11 attacks, was interviewed by Al Jazeera
in, 2002. Al Qaeda leader stated that "Al Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified concern about aircraft crashes." Acquisition of poisonous material
had remained of little interest for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda operatives were experimenting on "crude chemical agents" before 9/11 in its training camps in Afghanistan. However, their use was left on
the individuals outside Al Qaeda core leadership command. Abu Khabab planned small scale chemical and biological activity, in 2002 and 2003 Abu Masab al Zarqawi planned attacks using
ricin and cyanide in Europe and Bahrain based terror group also devised a plan to carryout attack using crude cyanide gas device in New York City subway. Al Qaeda top leadership was kept
uniformed of these attacks. Later, Al Zawahiri comes to know about New York subway planned attack he cancelled it "for something better." After reading the preceding paragraphs it is
terrorists also have three routes to
get hold on these weapons. First acquire WMD. Second, develop nuclear device or dirty bomb. Thirdly,
terrorist can carry-out attack on nuclear programme sites/complexes. Cont…. According to IAEA, 433 power plants and 240 operational nuclear research
reactors are operating internationally. Despite the fact that measures are taken to deny the right of terrorists/non state actors to acquire nuclear material, fissile material is
produced in great quantity - around the globe both for military purposes and civilian needs. Such material is dispersed at various
sites worldwide. It is more difficult to maintain strict control over fissile material than over nuclear weapons. States posed with security threats are
understood that unlike state actors, who are determined to acquire nuclear weapons to boost their security and deter enemies,
attempting to develop clandestine nuclear weapons programme in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is suspected by the US that it is violating the clauses of the NPT and
developing nuclear programme for military purposes. Proliferators want to get nuclear weapons in order to employ them to deter their enemies both potential and declared rather than use it.
presence of huge stockpile of nuclear fissile material, spread of nuclear weapons and existing nuclear arsenals have created fear
terrorists may either acquire or construct a nuclear device. Legacy of the risk of nuclear attack will
persist as long as fissile material exists.
However,
that
Tons of terrorist motivations – we only have to win one
Ackerman 6 (Gary, Research Director, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and
Responses to Terrorism, Motivations for Engaging in Nuclear Terrorism)
Motives for Using Nuclear Weapons The
following list examines possible terrorist motivations that reflect
strategic, operational and tactical incentives for using nuclear weapons (i.e., where nuclear weapons are used
as a means to an end) as well as more esoteric motives where the use of nuclear weapons is an end in itself.7 Mass Casualties . The
most obvious reason for terrorists to seek nuclear weapons is for the purpose of inflicting
massive casualties upon their perceived enemies.8 Indeed, while conventional (and even most unconventional) weapons will suffice to
kill thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands of people, for perpetrators who seek to cause the maximum possible immediate carnage (on the
order of hundreds of thousands or millions of fatalities) the most viable means is to utilize the kinetic and thermal effects of a nuclear blast.9
Much of the concern surrounding terrorism involving WMD stems from the belief that there is a growing number of non-state actors prepared to
inflict catastrophic violence.10 The majority of terrorist attacks, however, are carried out for a multiplicity of motives, so one should not assume
Inordinate
Psychological Impact . It is a truism that one of the core elements of terrorism is the terror it evokes. For a
that the desire to inflict mass casualties is necessarily the sole, or even predominant, motive for resorting to a nuclear option.11
terrorist group seeking to traumatize a targeted society and generate public and official disorientation, nuclear weapons must hold a particular
allure, for there can be few images that are guaranteed to leave as indelible a mark on the collective psyche of the targeted country as that of a
mushroom cloud over one of its major cities.12 Anthony Cordesman asserts that it is not even necessary for a nuclear weapon to have
Prestige . Historically, nuclear
weapons have remained under the exclusive purview of nation- states, with one of the key motivations for
state acquisition being the status which nuclear weapons are believed to bestow upon their possessors. How much more appealing
then might the possession of nuclear weapons seem for non-state groups, many of whom seek international
catastrophic physical effects for it to have far-ranging psychological and political impact.13
legitimization? To the extent that terrorists believe that nuclear weapons could enable them to attain quasi-state standing or redress military
imbalances vis-à-vis their purported enemies, the possession of such weapons, but not necessarily their use, becomes an attractive proposition. It
is even conceivable that a terrorist group might pursue nuclear weapons in the hope of deterring,
blackmailing or coercing a particular state or group of states. Thomas Schelling explores the prestige and deterrence aspects for non-state
Incentives for Innovation and Escalation . In a milieu in which terrorist groups may have to
compete with rival groups for “market share” of media attention and constituency support, terrorist decision
terrorists.14
makers may feel compelled to exceed the destruction wrought by previous attacks. For a discussion of why terrorists seek mass-casualty events
that “out-do” previous attacks, see Post.15 The asymptote of such escalatory pressures, especially in the wake of such attacks as those of
September 11, may be the detonation of a nuclear weapon on enemy territory, which would guarantee unrivalled attention upon the terrorists and
their cause. While most terrorist supporters and sympathizers would be appalled by such horrific actions, there are certain subsets of disaffected
populations that could condone the use of nuclear weapons against a hated enemy, for example, brutalized communities motivated by revenge.
Mass Destruction and Area Denia l. In certain cases, terrorists may desire not only mass casualties,
but also to physically destroy the infrastructure of their enemies and deny them the use or
functioning of vital areas, tasks to which nuclear weapons, which have both immediately
destructive blast effects and persistent radiological contamination effects, are well suited.
Ideology. The worldview of a terrorist group or individual demarcates allies and enemies and forms the basis for deciding between
legitimate and illegitimate targets and tactics.16 As such it is likely to be one of the most important factors in any
decision to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. It is often asserted that the use of a weapon as destructive and reviled as
nuclear weapons would alienate the supporters and perceived constituency of any terrorist group motivated primarily by a nationalist or secular
political ideology,17 and therefore that such groups would mostly refrain from using nuclear weapons. Whatever the accuracy of this assertion, a
corollary is widely accepted by terrorism experts, i.e., that groups motivated by religion, which are focused on cosmic as opposed to mortal
concerns, are far more willing to engage in attacks involving mass casualties and hence would be more prone to use nuclear weapons or other
means of mass destruction.18 As one analyst observed, “to the extent that violent extremist groups are absolutely convinced that they are doing
God’s bidding, virtually any action that they decide to undertake can be justified, no matter how heinous, since the ‘divine’ ends are thought to
justify the means.”19 The resurgence in religiously-inspired terrorism in recent decades could imply that there is now a greater possibility of
terrorists seeking to use weapons of mass destruction.20 The situation, however, is more complex. First, not all religious terrorists are equally
likely to pursue mass destruction—many religiously motivated terrorist organizations have political components, represent constituencies that are
well-defined geographically (and thus are subject to retribution), or depend for financial or logistical support on parties whose views may not be
quite as radical as their own. Moreover, it is the theological and cultural content of the particular strand of religious belief that is argued to be of
greatest significance,21 rather than the mere fact that a group has a religious bent. It has been asserted that the ideologies most conducive to the
pursuit of catastrophic violence are those that simultaneously reflect an apocalyptic millenarian character, in which an irremediably corrupt world
must be purged to make way for a utopian future, and emphasize the capacity for purification from sins through sacrificial acts of violence.22
Such ideologies are often, though not exclusively, found amongst unorthodox religious cults, such as Aum Shinrikyo, the Covenant, the Sword,
and the Arm of the Lord, and R.I.S.E.23 One can conceive of an affinity between the “the relentless impulse toward world-rejecting
purification”24 displayed by such groups and the levels of “cathartic” destruction only achievable using nuclear weapons. Moreover, Jessica
Stern has suggested that religious terrorists might embrace weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, as a means of “emulat[ing]
God”25. One must bear in mind, however, that possessing an ideology with a religious character may at most be a contributing factor to any
desire to engage in nuclear terrorism, and is certainly not determinative, an assertion which has been validated empirically for CBRN weapons en
Atomic Fetishism . A terrorist group whose ideology or key decision makers display a
peculiar fascination for things nuclear or radiological might be more likely to consider pursuing a
nuclear weapons capability. It is not hard to imagine that a group whose ideology is based for instance, upon a nuclear holocaust
toto.
motif, or whose leader is obsessed with the science-fiction genre, could be drawn towards nuclear weapons as their preferred instruments of
destruction. The archetype amongst known terrorist groups is Aum Shinrikyo, whose leader, Shoko Asahara, behaved almost fetishisticly towards
Revenge and Other “Expressive” Motives . It
is believed that individuals from heavily brutalized and traumatized communities (such as those who fall
victim to genocide) might be capable of unrestrained levels of violence in the pursuit of revenge against
their perceived persecutors,27 and thus might consider a retributive act as devastating as a nuclear detonation. Other expressive
several types of unconventional weapons, including the nuclear variety.
motives might also come into play, for example, an extreme form of defensive aggression wherein a group perceives its own imminent
destruction (or that of those it purports to represent) and thus resorts to the most violent measures imaginable as a “swan song”.28 In addition to
the possible set of instrumental, ideological or psychological motives already described, opportunity and organizational dynamics may influence
indirectly a terrorist group’s pursuit of a nuclear capability. Turning first to opportunity, a terrorist
group manifesting one or
more of the above-described motives may be propelled to consider the nuclear option more
seriously by happenstance. For example, governmental collapse in a nuclear weapons state could provide increased scope for the
terrorists’ procurement of intact nuclear weapons and thus might precipitate for the first time the consideration of using a nuclear device. Looking
next at organizational dynamics, groups exhibiting certain structural characteristics might be more likely to engage in acts of violence as extreme
as nuclear terrorism. Some of these allegedly pernicious traits include: control by megalomaniacal or sadistic, but nonetheless charismatic and
authoritarian leaders; isolation from their broader society, with little display of concern for outgroups; an intentional focus on recruiting technical
or scientifically skilled members; a record of innovation and excessive risk-taking; and the possession of sufficient resources, whether financial,
human or logistical, to enable long-term research and development into multiple advanced weapons systems.29 While
none of the
above motives will necessarily lead to a decision to use nuclear weapons, the existence of such a
broad array of potential motives provides a prima facie theoretical case that the most extreme
and violent of terrorists might find the destructive power of nuclear weapons strategically,
tactically, or emotionally advantageous. Any group possessing several of the abovementioned attributes deserves close
scrutiny in this regard. Moreover, many (though not all) of the motives listed could also be realized by lower-scale attacks, including using
radioactive dispersal devices (RDDs) or attacking nuclear facilities. For instance, RDDs would likely result in a disproportionate psychological
impact and area denial, but would not satisfy terrorists seeking mass fatalities.
Terror---A2: No Attacks---Yes Transportation
Once terrorist have nuclear material they could easily make a bomb and bring it
into the US
Bunn 6(Matthew, Senior research associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University s John F Kennedy School of
Government, “Terrorist Nuclear Weapon Construction: How Difficult?” September,
http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/pdfplus/25097844.pdf?acceptTC=true)
An implosion-type bomb does not, however, require as extreme a level of sophistication as is
sometimes imagined. Today, with the knowledge that it can be done and substantial unclassified
literature on the underlying physics, materials properties, and explosives (explosive lenses and other shaped explosive charges are now in
wide use for conventional military and even commercial applications), the challenge, though still significant, would be less than
during the Manhattan Project. Plastic explosives, for example, could readily be molded into the requi
site shapes. And as long as a substantial degree of compression is achieved, the timing of the
explosive detonations and the resulting shape of the inward-traveling shock wave do not have to
be absolutely perfect. A crude gun- or implosion-type weapon would be heavy perhaps in the range of a
ton but not as heavy as even the first generation of military weapons, which required cases that enabled them to
be dropped as gravity bombs (Mark et al. 1987). Such a bomb could easily be carried in a van or truck. Conceivably, the
pieces of a bomb could even be put together at the target as the bomb for the Trinity test was in which case the
nuclear-explosive materials and other components would be delivered separately. The number of possible pathways for
smuggling a nuclear bomb or its ingredients into the United States is immense, and intelligent
adversaries will choose whichever route remains undefended. All border controls can
realistically hope to do is to make the easiest pathways more difficult, forcing terrorists to use riskier
smuggling routes, increasing the chance of their interdiction. There is, in short, a very real possibility that a technically
sophisticated ter rorist group, given sufficient effort, could make a crude implosion-type bomb particularly if
they got knowledgeable help, as al Qaeda has been attempting to do (Bunn, Wier, and Friedman 2005). While HEU poses a
greater danger than plutonium, because of its potential use in a simpler gun type bomb, it seems likely that a significant fraction ofthe
small segment of terrorist groups that would have the technical sophistication and determination to both
acquire substantial amounts of nuclear material and make a gun-type bomb would also be able to acquire
the capabilities needed to make a crude implosion bomb meaning that theft of separated
plutonium would also pose a terrible danger.
Terror---A2: No Attacks---Trick***
Even if they win no nuclear terrorism, conventional attack triggers our retaliation
impacts
Hoffman 1(Bruce, director of RANDs Washington Office, “Section V: Proliferation, Terrorism,
Humanitarian Interventions,” RAND,
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1306z1/MR1306.1.sec5.pdf
)
In any event, the most likely range of terrorist threats will not include the ruthless use of some exotic weapon on a scale of mass destruction,
toward which U.S. response efforts are currently focused, but the calculated terrorist use of some chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological
(CBNR) weapon to achieve far-reaching psychological effects. A
limited terrorist attack involving not a weapon of mass
per se, but an unconventional CBNR weapon employed on a deliberately small
scale—either alone or as part of a series of smaller incidents occurring either simultaneously or sequentially in a given location—could
also have disproportionately enormous consequences, generating unprecedented fear and alarm,
and thus serving the terrorists’ purpose just as well as a larger weapon or more ambitious attack
with massive casualties could have. Hence, the most salient terrorist threat involving an
unconventional weapon may likely not involve or even attempt the destruction of an entire city
or some similar worst-case scenario, but the far more deliberate and delicately planned use of a
CBNR agent for more discreet purposes.
destruction (WMD)
Terror---A2: No Impact/Retaliation
Yes retaliation – causes nuclear war
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic
Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack:
Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July,
Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable.
Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global
catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the
twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that
as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place
precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable.
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
It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially
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
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
easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example,
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
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?
ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
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,
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
on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality,
probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or
nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets,
Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One farfetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya,
perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly
raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other
nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States,
both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim
one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against
groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they
secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or
existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions
might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of
avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply
had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading
state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the
United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some
readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads
and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher
state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be
keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to
communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this
In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack,
occur?
how would the attacked country respond to
pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this
concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists.
This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.
A successful nuclear terrorist attack results in massive proliferation and global
nuclear war
Frank 13 (Forrest, research associate at Naval War College, “NUCLEAR TERRORISM AND
THE ESCALATION OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT,” May 9,
www.usnwc.edu%2Fgetattachment%2F9508e128-a340-4760-8666-5192428cdb15%2FNuclearTerrorism-and-the-Escalation-ofInternatio.aspx&ei=2b4gUuKbKerW2wWjiYDQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHSlZzsN_iiB7TT_75p0JG0
xEMm6g&sig2=aZR2saw8qArkTWMD5Nwm1g&bvm=bv.51495398,d.b2I)
The use of military force in response to nuclear terrorism by the victim state cannot be
overlooked. Military force could be deployed against the same wide variety of states noted above. The range
of military actions that could be undertaken could vary greatly from minimum efforts to close the border between the victim state and its neighbors to more drastic actions. These
actions might include some or all of the following: interdiction of terrorist infiltration routes; attacks on terrorist base camps; .embargo or blockade of states aiding terrorists or permitting terrorists to
operate from their territories; attacks on the civilian population of other states roughly equaling the destruction
caused by a nuclear terrorist act; destruction of other states' nuclear facilities; o r even a full-scale
invasion and occupation of other states in reprisal for nuclear terrorism It is clear that acts undertaken by the victim
state toward other states would have profound effects on international order . The military
actions described above would be sufficient to unleash a major war , depending on the states directly
involved and the strength of their respective alliance systems. Incidents of nuclear terrorism involving materials nominally under
international safeguards would automatically raise very serious questions about the reli- ability of International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on nuclear materials. IAEA inspection of national nuclear materials accounts, the primary safeguard
against diversion of nuclear materials, that fail to detect the diver- sion of nuclear materials subsequently thought to have been used in the commission of a nuclear terrorist act may raise very grave questions about the entire safeguards system. Such
questions once raised would
be very hard to quiet, hence weakening the IAEA's ability to perform its critical function of
verifying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.29 Nuclear terrorism may also raise a number of problems relating to the obligations
assumed by the nuclear weapon states in their adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty- Security Council Resolution 255, (19 June
1968).3 0 The nuclear weapon states might find themselves in a posi- tion of direct confrontation with one another because of demands on the
part of the government of the state attacked by nuclear terrorists for assistance. Furthermore, use of nuclear terrorism by a group claiming the
status of a state, i.e., a liberation movement, might cause major political problems.in relations among the nuclear weapon states, as well as
between the nuclear weapon states and nonnuclear weapon states. Successful
nuclear terrorism might also give rise to
more general security states would become concerned about nuclear terrorism and might
undertake actions that could easily be misinter- preted by other, potential adversaries. Successful
nuclear terrorism in one part of the world might be an invitation to terrorists in other parts of the
world to use nuclear explosive devices, radiologi- cal weapons, or attacks on nuclear facilities as an effective, spectacular
means of achieving political and eco· nomic objectives. Government leaders might conceivably be faced with a
new set of dominoes-nuclear facilities, sources of radioactive materials, or sources of fissionable materials. In surveying the
political conse· quences of nuclear terrorism, it becomes clear that nuclear terrorism creates problems which, in turn, may
be more destructive over the long term than the act of nuclear terrorism itself. Initiation of hostilities between two or more
states as the result of a catalytic nuclear terrorist act ought to be an outcome over which great efforts would be ex- pended in an effort to avoid it.
Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to the problem of limiting the escalation of conflict
arising from nuclear terrorism. We now turn to some possible steps that might be taken unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally by
nations of the world to avoid the "worst case" outcome of a nuclear terrorism incident.
AIDS---2NC Module
Normalized Cuban relations key to solve AIDS spread
Gibson 7/9 {Drew, case manager and social worker at the Northern Kentucky Independent
District Health Department, former Research Assistant at the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, Master of Social Work + Management & Community Organizing (University of
Maryland Baltimore), “Doing More with Less: Cuba’s Lessons on HIV Treatment and
Prevention,” The Body, 2015, http://www.thebody.com/content/76088/doing-more-with-lesscubas-lessons-on-hiv-treatmen.html#THUR}
Obama announced to the assembled press, the American people and the world that the
U.S. would be opening its embassy in Havana for the first time in more than half a century. "The progress that we mark today
is yet another demonstration that we don't have to be imprisoned by the past . When something
isn't working, we can and will change," the President remarked. By and large, the American public agrees with President Obama's
Standing in the Rose Garden earlier this month, President
assessment of the situation, with 63% of the country openly in favor of re-establishing diplomatic relations with our Southern neighbor. For many of the 51% of
Cuban Americans who are in favor of the normalization of relations with Cuba, support for opening the pathways of diplomacy and trade are rooted in their desire to
For non-Cuban Americans, the opening of the U.S.
embassy in Havana not only means the end of 54 years of failed isolationist policy, but also signals resurrected economic and travel
opportunities in what was once the premier American tourist destination in the Caribbean. However, potential resource exchanges
between the two nations extend to ideas as well as goods and services, and in the realm of
reunify with family and rekindle relationships that have lain dormant for decades.
intellectual capital there are few Cuban imports as valuable as public health
policy. At the same time that President Obama was announcing Washington's diplomatic rapprochement
with Havana, news outlets were reporting that Cuba had become the first country in the world to
end mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In point of fact, the Cubans didn't eradicate mother-to-child HIV transmission as there were
two babies born with the virus in 2013, but since the current preventative measures available for perinatal infection aren't foolproof, two is tantamount to zero from a
This is a huge breakthrough for preventative HIV practices across the globe, as
it provides other nations with hope that they too can eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
On the other hand, Cuban success in HIV prevention is old news. With an adult HIV prevalence
rate of just 0.2%, Cuba has the lowest rate of HIV infection among Caribbean nations and has
historically had one of the most comprehensive -- if controversial -- HIV/AIDS prevention programs in
the world. In the early 1980s, at a time when President Ronald Reagan was refusing to publicly acknowledge
the existence of AIDS and his press secretary was addressing the epidemic with derision and laughter, Cuba had already begun
preparations for stopping the spread of the virus . In 1983, after seeing the virus explode
in nations around it -- more than two years before the country's first documented case of the virus -- the Cuban government destroyed all foreignderived blood products and set up a national AIDS commission. Such proactive actions have
been characteristic of the Cuban response to the AIDS epidemic, especially in its early years. But Cuba's determined approach
also opened up the nation to allegations that it was abusing the human rights of its citizens, and garnered rebuke from the international community. Beginning in
1986, Cuba set up a network of sanatoria across the country for a state-mandated quarantine of
HIV-positive citizens. For seven years, the HIV-positive population of Cuba was held at these 14 sanatoria, where they received medical care and were
kept apart from the general population. Hearing this might conjure up images of oppressive, poorly maintained hospitals, but the sanatoria have been
described by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "like suburban communities on several acres of land with modern oneand two-story apartment duplexes ... surrounded by lush vegetation and a small garden." While housed in these sanatoria, patients were treated by
family physicians and monitored by public health officials seeking to learn more about the
natural history of the epidemic. The medical monitoring of patients was paired with other measures,
such as following up with and testing the sexual partners of HIV-positive persons; and the mandatory testing
public health standpoint.
of certain groups, including blood donors, pregnant women and adults with sexually transmitted infections. Cuba has also placed a
large emphasis on education, implementing a compulsory six-week "Living With HIV" program for all newly diagnosed Cubans, and
providing children with sex education beginning in the fifth grade. Since the end of 1993, when residency at sanatoria
became optional, the Cuban government has worked to integrate HIV-positive citizens back into the
community through a host of measures ranging from inpatient job training programs to anti-discrimination laws that not only prohibit employers from firing
people for being HIV positive, but also require them to pay salaries to HIV-positive employees taking part in educational programs or living in a sanatorium. It is easy
for Americans who place the rights of the individual above those of the collective to look at the Cuban response to HIV and criticize the lack of autonomy Cuba has
to focus on this policy limitation and disregard Cuban successes would be to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. The fact that the U.S. has nearly the same life expectancy and WHO health
system ranking as Cuba when it has nearly an 8-to-1 advantage in GDP per capita should tell us that
there are aspects of Cuba's approach to HIV and public health that we should be
allowed its HIV-positive citizens. But
adopting . In 2011 in the U.S., only 37% of people living with HIV had been prescribed antiretroviral
medications, while Cuba was one of only 12 nations to achieve universal access to antiretroviral treatment (defined by
WHO as at least 80% of people eligible). I don't know about you, but I'm having a pretty hard time seeing the
human rights violation in that.
AIDS causes extinction
Clark 95 (William R., Professor Emeritus and Chair of Immunology – UCLA, At War Within:
The Double-Edged Sword of Immunity, p. 171-173)
But what if there is no breakthrough? It is estimated that at the present rate of increase 100 million—2 percent—of the world’s inhabitants could be infected with HIV
by the year 2000. What if we are left to our natural biological selves to deal with this modern plague, with not help from science or medicine? Is there a chance we
will ultimately develop a natural resistance to HIV not dependent on the immune system, or on external drugs or vaccines? Theoretically, if HIV began seriously
HIV transmission from one individual to another
can take place only under highly restrictive conditions, mostly based on the direct mixing of bodily fluids.
But what if a strain of HIV suddenly emerged that could transmit between individuals through the air? An
HIV carrier who sneezed on an elevator could infect the next dozen people or so people getting on. In the course
of a common cold, with all of the attendants coughing and sneezing, he or she might infect a hundred or thousand people. That is
exactly how colds themselves are spread. Given the long period of time before the individuals infected would know they
are HIV-positive, transmission could move outward to infect thousands more. This scenario is the
worst possible nightmare with respect to AIDS, but unhappily it is not entirely beyond the realm of the
possible. Under such conditions, individuals with, say spontaneous mutations in their CD4 molecules that deprived gp120 of a binding site could come to have a
decimating the human population, this could happen. But the cost could be very high indeed. At present,
selective advantage. The same would be true of any other human mutation that interfered with HIV reproduction. Perhaps this is not an idle speculation. Evolutionists
have focused in recent years on something called punctuated equilibrium. The greatest evolutionary changes seem not to, occur slowly, through the accumulation of
minor mutations over time, but very rapidly, usually in respond to some catastrophic environmental alternation. The extremely rapid replacement of dinosaurs by later
forms of vertebrates, for example, appears to have occurred in the after math of a meteor reaching the earth’s surface some sixty-five million years ago, at the end of
the Cretaceous Period. In evolutionary terms, this all happened in the blink of an eye. It takes little imagination to picture the consequences wreaked by such enormous
devastation in the biosphere. More than half the animal life forms existing on earth at the time—including most large land animals—are thought to have disappeared.
Life-forms with characteristics that gave them even a small survival advantage at all came to dominance in a very short order in this new world. These changes took
place over such a short period in geological time that there is virtually no fossil record of the enormous range early and intermediate mammalian life forms that
emerged. Similarly, if the human population were reduced to a very small Numbers by HIV, it is entirely possible that the earth could see another example of
Humans could
be extinguished altogether from the earth
punctuated equilibrium.
either
, or a few individuals with chance
mutations somehow protecting them from infection by HIV could reproduce and ultimately give rise to a new strain of Homo Sapiens. Whatever genetic changes that
allowed them to evade infection by HIB would dominate the new strain completely. Even if HIV subsequently disappeared from the face of the earth, these changes
would likely remain indefinitely as a sort of genetic fossil record of the HIV experience.
AIDS---A2: Impact Inevitable
AIDs spread reversible
Singer 2 [Peter W. Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative and a senior fellow in
Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (not the bioethicist/philosopher Peter Singer), Spring
2002, “AIDS and International Security,” Survival, Vol. 44, No.1 p. 145-158]
Prospects and Challenges This article represents an important endeavor in establishing the security dimensions of a nontraditional threat. Its finding is that the
If the present trend of
infection continues, the disease will directly kill at a rate that is almost unimaginable. The disease,
relationship between the disease of AIDS and increased threats of instability and war is a complex dynamic, but a very real one.
however, also threatens those even not at direct risk of infection. Its unique clustering in certain core social institutions threatens to set in motion of series of events
Militaries will crumble, states will fall, wars will be more deadly, more
frequent, and harder to contain, and all because of a little virus that targets the human immune
system. The prospects are dark, but not yet hopeless. The key phrase in the above assessment
is “if the present trend of infection continues.” AIDS is indeed a security threat and should be treated as such, with the incumbent
high level attention and resources necessary to defend against it. A number of states, such as Senegal, Thailand, and Uganda have acted to
reverse their rates of infection, illustrating that with a programmatic approach, success in
battling AIDS is possible . That said, nearly every country has denied or minimized the threat of AIDS over the last decade.55 This cannot
continue if there is any hope of containing the disease and its wider implications. Successfully thwarting the disease’s further spread requires a
clarified and cohesive response. This extends from local states to global bodies.
with wider political implications.
AIDS---A2: No Extinction---General
Failure to control the spread of AIDS triggers mutations that cause extinction
Ehrlichs 90 (Paul and Anne, Professors of Population Studies – Stanford University, The
Population Explosion, p. 147-148)
Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV
can be slowed through public education and other measures, on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments, and to
a large extent on luck. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable, and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug,
AZT, that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts, in
this case people, might evolve new transmission characteristics. To do so, however, would
almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. If, for instance, the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to
transmit it readily), the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. Unlike the current version of AIDS, which can
take ten years or more to kill its victims, the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. Infected
individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others, and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of
myxopatomis). What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear, but it could temporarily increase the transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected
If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the
membranes of the mouth, the lungs, or the intestines were increased, the virus might be spread
by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. But it is likely, as Temin points out, that acquiring those abilities would
persons until the system once again equilibrated.
so change the virus that it no longer efficiently infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. In effect it would produce an entirely
a relatively minor mutation could
lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. If so, it
might be transmissible through coughs.
different disease. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate, Joshua Lederberg, is worried that
AIDS causes extinction
Tom Kerns 99, professor of philosophy, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium
Madness, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html
AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon
General) " AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population
today. " (Marc Lappé) AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of
the most biologically urgent of human behaviors." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, &
professor in U Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, it has become increasingly
evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both
developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic
development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more
productive and has an increased capacity for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic will undermine improvements in health status and, in turn, reduce the potential for
economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can be expected to be
quite severe.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer
(among the elderly in developed countries), is that it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which
coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years." - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an
The worst threat to humankind
economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's Population
Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease
and Human Resources Department.) E. "
." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the
US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: * High morbidity & mortality * Lifelong infectiousness * lengthy asymptomatic stage * highly mutable virus
"We know that HIV is still evolving. Its
global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history.
What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is
Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of airborne transmission:"
"No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other
ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of
AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and
TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic
plague." * effective modes of transmission * destroys the immune system * viral reservoir expanding Dr Barry D Schoub, Director of the National Institute of Virology at the
University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, sums up thus: "[ T]he ability of the virus to cause a slow, progressive and
permanent infection with permanent infectivity makes it a unique cause of epidemic disease.
Thus, with no recovery, no loss of infectivity, no development of either individual or herd
immunity, there is no known biological mechanism which can stop the continuing expansion
of the disease unless an effective vaccine were to come about, and at present there is no feasible design for such an
effective vaccine. The progressive increase in the pool of HIV can, in theory, only lead to an exponential increase in the
number of individuals who will become infected until eventually the majority of the sexually
active population will be infected unless interventions are at lease moderately successful."
AIDS---A2: No Extinction---Yes Mutations
AIDs mutations now
Times of India 15 [2-16, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/New-aggressiveform-of-HIV-accelerates-AIDS/articleshow/46257776.cms]
A new aggressive form of HIV can progress to AIDS in just three years - so rapidly that patients may
not even realize they were infected, scientists say. Engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners increases the risk of
contracting multiple strains of HIV. Once inside a host, these strains can recombine into a new variant of
the virus, researchers said. One such recombinant variant observed in patients in Cuba appears to be much more aggressive than other known
forms of HIV, researchers said. Before it can enter human cells, HIV must first anchor itself to them. The virus does this via anchor points, or coreceptors, which are proteins on the cell membrane. In a normal infection, the virus first uses the anchor point CCR5. In many patients, after a
number of healthy years, the virus then switches to the anchor point CXCR4. This co-receptor switch coincides with a faster progression to
AIDS. Researchers
at KU Leuven's Laboratory for Clinical and Epidemiological Virology in Belgium have described a
in patients in Cuba that makes this transition much faster. The virus targets the anchor
point CXCR4 early after infection, shortening drastically the healthy phase and triggering rapid progression
to AIDS. The transition from anchor point CCR5 to CXCR4 is normally very difficult. Researchers suspect that the rapid transition observed
in this HIV recombinant occurs as a result of combining fragments from different HIV subtypes.
recombinant form of HIV observed
Mutations inevitable
Frieden 14 (Thomas R. – Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; previously New York
City health commissioner – “Why Global Health Security Is Imperative,” 2-13-14,
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/why-global-health-security-isimperative/283765/)
Emerging diseases don’t just happen in the movies . Every day the
CDC starts a new investigation; on average we turn up one new disease-causing organism every year. In 2011
we found three. As I write, the second wave of the deadly H7N9 avian flu is hitting China. We’ve been lucky that
this strain hasn’t, yet, learned to pass easily from person to person. New diseases are inevitable, but new epidemics
aren’t.¶ Drug-resistant infections are the second and perhaps most pernicious threat we face . Already
the nightmare bacteria called CRE (carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae), resistant to most or all
antibiotics, have gone from a single patient in one state in the U.S. to at least 47 states and
thousands of patients. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis bacteria are another example of why
the end of the antibiotic era is already close for some infections. When I was in charge of tuberculosis control in
These threats come from three directions.
New York City in the early 1990s, I cared for a man with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. It took two years, surgery, extended periods of
intravenous antibiotics, and more than $100,000 to cure him. A few years later, I helped his village in India set up a treatment program that would
have prevented his resistant infection for less than $10.¶
AIDS---A2: No Extinction---Trick***
AIDs sparks conflict and magnifies impacts
Singer 2 [Peter W. Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative and a senior fellow in
Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (not the bioethicist/philosopher Peter Singer), Spring
2002, “AIDS and International Security,” Survival, Vol. 44, No.1 p. 145-158]
the growing danger presented by the epidemic, not just in terms of direct victims of the
to international security.
A recurring theme at all these meetings was
disease itself, but
Speaking at the UN Security Council session, James Wolfensohn, head of the World Bank, stated, ‘Many
of us used to think of AIDS as a health issue. We were wrong … nothing we have seen is a greater challenge to the peace and stability of African societies than the
we face a major development crisis, and more than that, a security crisis’.2 Indeed, a significant continuity between Clinton
AIDS and increased instability and war. Following a CIA report on
how the disease increased the prospects of ‘revolutionary wars, ethnic wars, genocide, and disruptive
regime transitions’, the Clinton administration declared HIV/AIDS a ‘national security threat’ in 2000. The administration was initially accused of
epidemic of AIDS …
and Bush administration worldviews is the perception of a link between
pandering to certain activist groups, but by the time of his confirmation hearings in 2001, the new Secretary of State Colin Powell was also declaring the disease a
‘national security problem’.3 Similarly, US Under-Secretary of State Paul Dobriansky stated that ‘HIV/
AIDS is a threat to security and global
stability, plain and simple’.4 The looming security implications of AIDS, particularly within Africa, are now a baseline assumption. However, the mechanisms
by which ‘AIDS has changed the landscape of war’ are barely understood.5 This essay seeks to explain those mechanisms. AIDS not only threatens
to heighten the risks of war, but also multiplies its impact . The disease will hollow out military
capabilities, as well as state capacities in general, weakening both to the point of failure and collapse. Moreover, at
these times of increased vulnerability, the disease also creates new pools of militant recruits, who portend even greater violence, as
well jeopardising certain pillars of international stability . In isolation, this increased risk of war around the
globe is bad enough, but there are also certain types of cross-fertilisation between the disease and conflict, intensifying the threat. The ultimate dynamic of
warfare and AIDS is that their combination makes both more likely and more devastating.
Economy---2NC Module
Revitalized relations key to Cuban economic growth – further congressional policy
key
Gutierrez 6/23 {Carlos M, Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, former President and Chief
Executive Officer of Kellogg, former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Visiting scholar at Miami
University’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies, “A Republican Case for Obama’s
Cuba Policy,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/a-republicancase-for-obamas-cuba-policy.html#THUR}
Like many fellow Republicans and Cuban-Americans, I
was critical when President Obama announced in December 2014 that
his administration would begin to normalize ties between the U nited S tates and Cuba. After years of hostility
and failed attempts at détente, I wondered: Did the Cuban government really want better ties with America, or was this simply another chess
move in a tired game? After all, Mr. Obama is not the first president to try to change the relationship with Cuba — Mr. Castro’s revolution has
outlived 10 American administrations. Today,
I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in 56 years. I see a glimmer
of hope that, with Cuba allowing even a small amount of entrepreneurship and many American
companies excited about entering a new market, we can actually help the Cuban
people . My 30-year career at the Kellogg Company taught me that, at its best, business can have a transformational and
uplifting impact on communities and whole societies . It is because of that belief that I have always been proud to call
myself a Republican. As secretary of commerce in the administration of George W. Bush, I was a voice for American business abroad and saw
firsthand that our private sector could be the best ambassador for American values, such as the
power of free enterprise to raise living standards and the importance of being free to work
where one chooses. I believe that it is now time for Republicans and the wider American business community to stop
fixating on the past and embrace a new approach to Cuba. It has now been six months since Mr.
Obama’s policy shift was announced. Both governments have confirmed plans to open embassies, and
negotiations have covered a variety of issues, including the extradition of American fugitives who fled to Cuba. Almost
every week a new congressional delegation lands in Havana. From a government-to-government perspective, there
has not been so much communication between the United States and Cuba in 50 years. I never expected negotiations to get this far. On the
business side, scores of Americans have begun to travel to Cuba under expanded licenses. American credit
card companies have been authorized to handle transactions in Cuba. Some of the most
innovative companies in the world , like Airbnb and Netflix, have begun to offer their services in Cuba.
The New York Cosmos soccer team has played exhibition matches on the island, and the National Basketball Association has sponsored a
workshop in Havana. Some presidential candidates, including the Cuban-American senators Marco Rubio
and Ted Cruz, have
argued that Mr. Obama has conceded too much. The truth is that the changes so far have been
incremental and this will be a long and gradual process. Contrary to popular belief , President
Obama’s executive actions do not allow for free and open commerce with Cuba, nor
do they open the doors for Americans to visit the island as tourists; the Helms-Burton Act of 1996
codified the embargo that prohibits most American companies from undertaking transactions with Cuba, and travel remains
restricted. Rather, the reforms have allowed some American companies and individuals to engage in limited
additional activities in Cuba. Perhaps most critical among these activities has been granting
Americans the right to support a new generation of Cuban-born entrepreneurs and Cuban-run
small businesses. This move is a logical response to a change allowed by the Castro regime in recent years. These
small-business owners and their employees will need tools, supplies, building materials and training
in accounting, logistics and other areas. The new reforms allow American citizens and businesses to address such needs, and I
am hopeful the Cuban government will allow its citizens to take full advantage of their assistance. Cubans
yearn not only for these
interactions but also for a time when they can enjoy opportunities to chart their own course in life without having to leave their home, as I
did 55 years ago. There are those who will always wish for the past, whether it is pre-Castro Cuba or the days before the
current rapprochement. Some of my fellow Cuban-Americans insist that continuing to squeeze Cuba economically will help the Cuban people
because it will lead to democracy. I wonder if the Cubans who have to stand in line for the most basic necessities for hours in the hot Havana sun
America must look to the future instead — and pursue this
opportunity to assist Cubans in building a new economy . There is a lot of work to do, and progress will be
slow. However, the business community and my fellow Cuban-Americans and Republicans should not
ignore the possibilities ahead. The Cuban people need and deserve our help.
feel that this approach is helpful to them.
Cuban economic collapse and instability coming now – that creams global hotspot
management and escalates GLOBAL conflict in Africa, Central Asia, Iran, Taiwan,
and Korea
Gorrell 5 – Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, “CUBA: THE NEXT
UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” US Army War College Research
Project, 3-18, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074)
**The gigantic shrunk section compares various policies towards Cuba – don’t bother reading it,
the conclusion is neg (as the “Conclusion and Recommendation” section underlined explains)
under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro
transformation only worsen . In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are
remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order
will create the conditions for instability and civil war. Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government
can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only
compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the
“wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of
this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could
be several hundred thousand fleeing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. Equally important, by adhering to a negative
containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems.
Regardless of the succession,
Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact,
Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and
13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may
If there were no Cuban restraints, the
flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate
considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups
to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or
throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism gets more complicated. Such
activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the
fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region,
the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another
insurgency. The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment
pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs.
throughout the Americas. A
proactive policy now can mitigate these
potential future problems. U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the
current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in
Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because
recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown.
There is a clear softening in the
Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily
subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to
U.S.-Cuban relations . (Table 1) The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule
until he dies. The only issue is what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90
miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the
resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government
and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in
There is justifiable concern that Africa and the
Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure.
North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore
China. What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to
war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive
action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the
elements of national power to resolve . In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the
Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in
effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a
manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources.
ANALYSIS OF POLICY ALTERNATIVES The U.S. can pursue three policy alternatives in dealing with Cuba: SUSTAIN THE CURRENT POLICY AND FULLY ENFORCE THE
ECONOMIC EMBARGO The crux of the argument for this policy is that sanctions and other restrictions will exert tremendous pressure on the Castro regime, in hope that the regime will fall prior to Castro’s death. There is little indication that this policy will succeed. The U.S. is virtually
the only country pursuing a policy to isolate Cuba. In the 1990s Castro was able to develop new trade and markets. While Cuba is not a prosperous country, it has nonetheless managed to endure. The loss of Soviet subsidies, which amounted to 25% of Cuba’s national income, and the loss of
the Eastern European bloc as trading partners, which amounted to 75% of Cuba’s import/export trade, left Castro with no alternative but to implement economic changes both internally and externally.30 These initiatives have stimulated steady, but modest, economic growth. Today in Cuba,
160,000 people (or 4% of the workforce) are self-employed.31 These entrepreneurial endeavors include small restaurants, taxi drivers, repairmen, and other service industries. If the present course of sanctions continues, the gains of these small reforms will be suppressed leading to significant
deprivation for the people involved. Also, Cuba trades with over 100 countries worldwide, so while trade with the U.S. would certainly improve Cuba’s economic well-being, it is debatable whether the lack of U.S. trade is bringing the regime to its knees. The point is that sanctions are not
hurting Castro, but are hurting the Cuban population. Restricting trade and travel hurts the small businesses, the tourist industry and others whose livelihood depends on a service economy. It also degrades the quality of life of those Cubans whose financial support comes from family
members in the U.S. Strategists who subscribe to current policy argue that these limitations/hardships will eventually promote an uprising among the populace to overthrow Castro. There is no substantial evidence that this will occur and much that argues against it. While Castro will not live
forever, he has outlasted over 45 years of such U.S. policy. He is 78 years old and his father lived to be 80 under significantly less desirable conditions.32 If the present policy course is to wait Castro out this could potentially take another 5-10 years. The wait equates to 5-10 years of despair
for the Cuban people, further decay of the country’s infrastructure and more dire conditions that would make democratic reform all the more difficult and costly when Castro actually expires. Pursuing the present steady state policy will further alienate the Cuban people at home and abroad.
The U.S. often has a myopic vision in regard to other cultures. In the case of Cuba, by focusing only on Castro and ignoring the Cuban peoples’ culture and traditions, U.S. policy makers are blinded and have failed to see a future Cuba. RETAIN SANCTIONS AGAINST CUBA, BUT
ENFORCE THEM IN VARYING DEGREES DEPENDING ON THE POLITICAL CLIMATE AND THE CUBAN REGIME’S CONDUCT IN REGARD TO AMERICAN INTERESTS Throughout the past 15 years, the U.S. has experimented with a variable enforcement option. During
the Clinton administration, restrictions were occasionally eased. For example, in March 1998, President Clinton announced: 1) the resumption of licensing for direct humanitarian charter flights to Cuba; 2) the resumption of cash remittances up to $300 per quarter for the support of close
relatives in Cuba; 3) the development of licensing procedures to streamline and expedite licenses for the commercial sale of medicines and medical supplies and equipment; and 4) a decision to work on a bipartisan basis with Congress on the transfer of food to the Cuban people.33 In January
1999, President Clinton ordered additional measures to assist the Cuban people, which included further easement of cash remittances, expansion of direct passenger charter flights to Cuba, reestablishment of direct mail service, authorization for the commercial sale of food to independent
entities in Cuba, and an expansion of people-to-people exchanges (i.e. scientist, students, athletes, etc.)34 This policy ended when the new administration failed to see any reciprocal progress from Castro. Fragmenting the policy process may do more harm than good. It does too little too late
and causes hard feelings among Cubans and American businesses. The carrot-stick diplomatic approach will not make Castro yield. Such policy breeds inconsistency as it can vary from administration to administration, as it has between the Clinton and Bush administrations. The rules
constantly change and thus have a ripple effect on American businesses and the quality of life of Americans, Cuban-Americans and native Cubans. Cuban trade has already declined to a trickle since the Bush administration sought to further squeeze the Castro government. Prior to the Bush
administration’s trade crack down, 2004 was emerging as a record year for U.S. imports to Cuba. By the end of December 2004 U.S. suppliers and shippers were projected to have earned some $450 million, a 20% increase over 2003 sales.35 Imposing restrictions, as the Bush administration
did in June 2004, perplexed American businesses with unpredicted problems. These businesses make adjustments, as do Cuban- American citizens, then must abruptly alter their business strategies because of a Congressional vote or an Executive order. This political tug-of-war does not move
the U.S. any closer to realizing its security objectives. On the Cuban American front there is eroding support for this U.S. policy position. In the 2000 presidential election, President Bush won 81% of south Florida’s Cuban-American vote. A recent poll by the William C. Veleasquez
Institute-Mirram Global indicates that his support today has fallen to 66%.36 This decline signals a negative response to policy that limits travel, restricts the amount of goods people can bring to their relatives, and places limitations on sending money to family in Cuba. Cuban-Americans
believe that this only hurts their poor relatives in Cuba. According to Jose Basulto, head of Brothers to the Rescue, and Ramon Raul Sanchez, head of the anti-Castro Democracy Movement, the U.S. government is using the Cuban people to harass Castro.37 Applying policy in a give-andtake manner, accomplishes little to facilitate the fall of Castro. The Cuban people enjoy brief periods of limited benefits, only to have these benefits withdrawn should the President or members of Congress wish to take another jab at Castro. American civilian businesses are also negatively
affected. LIFT ALL SANCTIONS AND PURSUE NORMAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CUBA Normalcy is the only policy that the U.S. has not attempted. The present policy misses the security implications, alienates allies and others worldwide, harms U.S. businesses, and is
losing support domestically. First, the U.S. must reassess the threat posed by Cuba. There is, in fact, virtually no security threat. Further, policies that were applicable in the past, when there was a threat, should not be applied to the current environment. The U.S. Cuban policy is perplexing
because it appears to conflict with the ends, ways and means that the National Security Strategy is applied in other regions of the world. The U.S. has normalized relations with Vietnam and Libya and has certainly opted for an open dialogue with Communist China. Likewise, there is
abundant evidence that a new policy toward Cuba could very well achieve the ends that 43 years of embargo have failed to accomplish. Secondly, Cuba currently trades and has diplomatic ties with much of the world. The goal of U.S. sanctions is to isolate the Cuban regime; however, they
have only slowed, not deterred economic growth. On 4 November 2003 the United Nations voted, for the 12th straight year, 173 to 3 (with 4 abstentions) against the four-decade U.S. embargo against Cuba.38 Voting with the U.S. were Israel and the Marshall Islands. The U.S.’ staunchest
allies, the 15 members of the European Union, along with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, all object to the “extra -territorial” effect of U.S. legislation that they feel violates their sovereignty. 39 There are two schools of thought regarding trade and democracy. The first is that economic
growth will promote democracy. The other questions this notion and argues that democracy must come first.40 There is strong opinion, however, that in Cuba’s case economic engagement will bring about the desired results. Certainly many Cuban-Americans and perhaps some others in the
world would not agree with this course of action. However, there is evidence that a significant number of people both within the U.S. and abroad favor a policy change. In 1992 a pastoral letter from Cuba’s Bishops stated that the US embargo “directly affects the people who suffer the
consequences in hunger and illness. If what is intended by this approach is to destabilize the government by using hunger and want to pressure civic society to revolt, then the strategy is also cruel.“41 The third consideration is U.S. business. Under the current rules, U.S. businesses are
permitted to sell agricultural produce to Cuba.42 Today 27 firms from 12 U.S. states are doing business with Cuba, making Cuba 22nd among U.S. agricultural markets.43 These business activities are greatly influenced by Cuban-Americans and members of Congress. The economic power
of the U.S. can be our most powerful weapon. The possibilities of economic engagement offer a myriad of branches and sequels that could promote a rapport between the American people and the Cubans. The aggressive pursuit of these endeavors would go far in ensuring an orderly
transition to a post-Castro Cuba. It is an erroneous assumption to believe that Castro’s demise will miraculously trigger reform and all the problems of the last 40 years will vanish. A visionary policy, albeit constrained within the parameters of the Castro regime, will go far in setting
agreeable social-economic conditions in Cuba both now and in the future. Finally, public opinion in the U.S. favors a new policy direction. A 1997 Miami Herald poll found that a majority of Cubans under the age of 45 supported “establishing a national dialogue with Cuba,” whereas for the
most part their elders opposed such dialogue.44 Former President Jimmy Carter, writing in the Washington Post after his May 2002 visit to Cuba, reported that he found an unexpected degree of economic freedom. Carter went on to say that if Americans could have maximum contact with
Cuban, then Cubans would clearly see the advantages of a truly democratic society and thus be encouraged to bring about orderly changes in their society. 45 Castro himself appears willing to consider greater reform. In 1998 he permitted Pope John Paul II to visit Cuba; Cubans are permitted
to own property; he has opened trade; and in 2002 he broadcast former President Jimmy Carter’s address at the University of Havana.46 Additionally, he indicated that the Cuban government would return any of the Guantanamo detainees in the unlikely event that they would escape.47
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION U.S. policy makers need to confront
the real Cuba of today in order to build a “free” Cuba of tomorrow that is capable of taking its
place in the world community as a responsible, democratic nation. Given the history of the past 100 years,
and particularly our Castro centric policy, the U.S. needs to make a bold change toward Cuba . The
U.S. has pursued a hard-line approach toward the Castro regime for over 40 years. While this policy was
easily justified during the Cold War era and, to a certain degree, during the 1990s, it fails to address the present
U.S. national security concerns. The globalization trends of the 21st century are irreversible, Fidel Castro is in the
twilight of his life, and a new generation of Cuban-Americans is supportive of new strategies that will ease
the transition to a post-Castro Cuba while buttressing economic and social opportunities in the near term.
Furthermore, there is a new dimension that U.S. policy strategists must take into account in
deciding the course of U.S.- Cuba relations – the GWOT. World-wide asymmetrical threats to
U.S. interests, coupled with the Iraqi occupation and the potential for any one of the present hot spots (i.e.
Iran, North Korea, Taiwan, etc.) to ignite, should prompt strategic leaders to work harder to
mitigate a potential Caribbean crises. The prudent action would then be to develop strategies that can
defuse or neutralize these situations before they require the U.S. to divert resources from protecting its
interests in the GWOT.
Economy---A2: No IL---Econ K2 Stability
Decline causes trafficking, smuggling, and instability
Evans 5 – Sara Evans, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Callousness
Redefined: How EU and US Economic Policies Spell a Bitter End for the Caribbean Sugar
Industry”, SpecterZine, 6-27, http://www.spectrezine.org/LatinAmerica/sugar.htm
Caribbean nations have been heavily dependent on sugar exports since colonial times, and the commodity remains the backbone of many regional economies. An August 17, 2004 article featured
in the Caribbean and Central America Report revealed that annual revenue from sugar exports totalled $121 million for Guyana alone, $70 million for Jamaica and $34 million for Belize. In an
interview with COHA, the Second Secretary of the Embassy of Guyana, Forbes July, stated that sugar is the country's chief export and that the sugar industry is Guyana's largest employer. In
addition, according to a Caribbean Media Corporation interview of Guyana's foreign trade minister Clement Rohee, sugar accounts for 17 percent of Guyana's GDP. Sugar cane is the top
agricultural export for both Jamaica and Belize. Washington's role in the evolution of the Caribbean sugar industry has historically been to discourage area exports to the US. The 1983 Caribbean
Basin Initiative (CBI), which instituted a program of US tariff relief on many Caribbean products that remains in force today, resulted in increased US-Caribbean trade mainly as a result of the
virtual elimination of US imposts on products from the region. Meanwhile, tariffs averaging 20 percent were maintained on US imports to the islands. Today such tariffs have fallen to
approximately ten percent, according to WTO figures. Sugar was both excluded from duty-free treatment and restricted by quotas as Washington attempted to maintain its longstanding protection
of domestic sugar cane and beet farmers. As a result, Caribbean sugar exports to the U.S. declined by 75 percent from 1981 to 1987, according to the Library of Congress. This trend was
intensified by a decrease in the US's sugar quota prior to 1986. In fact, Caribbean exports as a whole declined by 24 percent from 1983 to 1985. However, the CBI mechanisms have contributed
to a limited diversification of Caribbean exports, achieving some progress in attaining their primary goal of increasing stability among the CARICOM countries. At the same time, these
initiatives originally were in large part aimed at counteracting the political influence of Cuba through strengthening the region's economic ties to Washington. The 1997 US-Caribbean Summit in
there is an "inextricable link between trade, economic
security and prosperity in our societies." Economic prosperity is essential to maintaining even minimal levels of
law and order in Caribbean countries, as financial hardship is a main contributing factor to an increase in crimes
like drug trafficking and gun running. It is crucial that the U.S. should manifest its concern for the support of sugar as an allBarbados facilitated trade dialogue and produced the Bridgetown Declaration of Principles, which asserted that
development,
important staple crop for many Caribbean economies in order to preserve stability in the region.
Decline makes instability inevitable
Grant 5 – Cedric Grant, Professor of International and Caribbean Affairs at Clark Atlanta
University, “U.S.-Caribbean Relations”, Institute for Policy Studies, 10-12, http://www.ipsdc.org/us-caribbean_relations/
But security issues do not follow a one-way street. Caribbean countries also have security
concerns about relations with the United States. Caricom, for example, has voiced its concerns
about gun smuggling from the U.S. and about the U.S. deportation of criminals of Caribbean
origin back to the region. More fundamentally, Caribbean states contend that the security and
stability problems in the region are rooted in economic development and thus cannot
effectively be addressed in isolation from strategies to improve economic conditions.
Accordingly, the Bridgetown Accord, the statement produced by the 1997 summit, “recognise[d]
the inextricable links between trade, economic development, security and prosperity in [these]
societies.”
Economy---A2: No War---Africa
Africa war escalates and goes nuclear
Lancaster 00
(Carol, Associate Professor and Director of the Master's of Science in Foreign Service Program –
Georgetown University, “Redesigning Foreign Aid”, Foreign Affairs, September / October,
Lexis)
THE MOST BASIC CHALLENGE facing the United States today is helping to preserve peace. The end of the Cold War eliminated a potential
threat to American security, but it did not eliminate conflict. In 1998 alone there were 27 significant conflicts in the world, 25 of which involved
intrastate conflicts were in sub-Saharan Africa, where poor governance
has aggravated ethnic and social tensions. The ongoing war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been
particularly nightmarish, combining intrastate and interstate conflict with another troubling element: military
intervention driven by the commercial motives of several neighboring states. Such motives could
fuel future conflicts in other weak states with valuable resources. Meanwhile, a number of other wars -- in Colombia, the former
Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi -- have reflected historic enmities or poorly resolved hostilities
of the past. Intrastate conflicts are likely to continue in weakly integrated, poorly governed states, destroying lives and property, creating
large numbers of refugees and displaced persons, and threatening regional security. The two interstate
violence within states. Nine of those
clashes in 1998 -- between India and Pakistan and Eritrea and Ethiopia -- involved disputes over land and other natural resources. Such contests
show no sign of disappearing. Indeed, with
dangerous than ever.
the spread of w eapons of m ass d estruction, these wars could prove more
Economy---A2: No War---Central Asia
Central Asian war causes global nuclear war
Blank 99 (Steven, Professor of Research – Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College,
Oil and Geopolitics in the Caspian Region)
experience suggests Moscow will even threaten a Third World War if there is Turkish
intervention in the Transcaucasus and the 1997 Russo-Armenian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance and the 1994
Turkish-Azerbaijani Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation suggest just such a possibility. Conceivably, the two larger states could then be
dragged in to rescue their allies from defeat. The Russo-Armenian treaty is a virtual bilateral military alliance against Baku, in that it
Past
reaffirms Russia’s lasting military presence in Armenia, commits Armenia not to join NATO, and could justify further fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh or further
military pressure against Azerbaijan that will impede energy exploration and marketing. It also reconfirms Russia’s determination to resist an expanded U.S. presence
and remain the exclusive regional hegemon. Thus, many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now
Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have great
potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often fear obliged to rescue their proxies and
exist in the Transcaucasus.
protégés. One or another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence, commitments involving the
For instance, in 1993
Turkish noises about intervening in the Karabakh War on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders
to threaten a nuclear war in such a case. This confirms the observations of Jim Hoagland, the international correspondent of the Washington Post,
use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe.
that “future wars involving Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern
Precisely because Turkey is a NATO
could conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small
possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major
war is higher here than almost anywhere else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China.
fringe of Europe and Russia.” Unfortunately, many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian.
ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia, or if it
Economy---A2: No War---East Asia
East Asia escalates---no checks
Adams 14 – Shar Adams, Reporter at the Epoch Times, “Asian Cold War: Escalating Conflict
in North-East Asia Bigger Threat Than War on Terror”, Epoch Times, 10-13,
http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/1014683-asian-cold-war-escalating-conflict-in-north-east-asiabigger-threat-than-war-on-terror/
The world may be focused on the “war on terror”, but the arms build up in
North-East Asia poses a far greater threat to global
stability
, says Professor Desmond Ball, a senior defence and security expert at the Australian National University (ANU). A former head of ANU’s Strategic &
Defence Studies Centre, Professor Ball is no lightweight when it comes to security concerns. It is Professor Ball’s expertise in command and control systems,
“North-East Asia has now become the most
disturbing part of the globe,” Prof Ball told Epoch Times in an exclusive interview. China, Japan and South Korea –
countries that are “economic engines of the global economy” – are embroiled in an arms race of unprecedented proportions,
punctuated by “very dangerous military activities”, he says. Unlike the arms race seen during the Cold War, however, there
are no mechanisms in place to constrain the military escalation in Asia. “Indeed, the escalation
dynamic could move very rapidly and strongly to large scale conflict, including nuclear
conflict,” said Prof Ball. “It is happening as we watch.” Arms Race Military spending in Asia has grown steadily over the last decade. According to a 2013
particularly in relation to nuclear war, that underlies his concerns about North-East Asia.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report, China is now the world’s second largest military spender behind the United States, spending an estimated
$188 billion in 2013. Japan and South Korea are also among the world’s top 10 military spenders. When North Korea and Taiwan are included, North-East Asian
countries constitute around 85 per cent of military spending in Asia. But what is more disturbing, Prof Ball says, is the motivation for the acquisitions. “The primary
reason now for the acquisitions, whether they are air warfare destroyers, missiles or defense submarines, is simply to match what the other [countries] are getting,” he
said. While he believes it is likely that Japan would have embarked on military modernisation, he says it is China’s military provocation of countries across Asia that
South China Sea has escalated territorial disputes
is fuelling the build-up. Since China lay claim to all of the
, it
with Vietnam, the
Philippines and Malaysia. What started with skirmishes between locals and Chinese fishing boats or navy vessels has now become territorial grabs – island building
on contested rocky outcrops. In a sign of things to come, the South China Morning Post reported in June: “China is looking to expand its biggest installation in the
Spratly Islands into a fully formed artificial island, complete with airstrip and sea port, to better project its military strength in the South China Sea.” According to
Filipino media, the artificial island falls within the Philippines’ 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Prof Ball says China’s behaviour in the South China Sea is
provocative, but “in the scale of what we are talking about, that is nothing” compared with conflicts in North-East Asia, where China and Japan are contesting claims
over the Tokyo-controlled Senkaku Islands (claimed as the Diaoyus by China). Of the Senkakus conflict, Prof Ball says: “
We are talking about
actual footsteps towards nuclear war – submarines and missiles.” Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 4.50.48 pm Chinese and
Japanese activity in the Senkakus region has escalated to the point where sometimes there are “at least 40 aircraft jostling” over the
contested area, he said. Alarm bells were set off near the Senkakus in January last year when a Chinese military vessel trained its fire-control radar on a Japanese
naval destroyer. The incident spurred the Japanese Defense Ministry to go public about that event and reveal another incident from a few days prior, when a Chinese
frigate directed fire-control radar at a Japanese military helicopter. Fire-control radars are not like surveillance or early warning radars – they have one purpose and
that is to lock onto a target in order to fire a missile. “Someone does that to us, we fire back,” Prof Ball said. Counter Measures Needed Prof Ball is recognised for
encouraging openness and transparency, and for his advocacy of multilateral institutions. He has been called one of the region’s “most energetic and activist leaders in
establishing forums for security dialogue and measures for building confidence”. In his experience visiting China over the years, however, Prof Ball says gaining open
dialogue and transparency with Chinese military leaders is difficult. He recounted a private meeting with a Chinese admiral shortly after the fire-control radar incident.
Prof Ball had seen direct evidence of the encounter – “tapes of the radar frequencies, the pulse rates and the pulse repetition frequencies” – and wanted to know what
had happened on the Chinese side and why it took place. “In a private meeting, I asked the admiral why … and he denied it to my face,” Prof Ball said. The Chinese
With so many players in
the region and few barriers against conflict escalation, the North-East Asian nuclear arms race
is now far more complex and dangerous than the Cold War, he says. In the Cold War, there were mechanisms at each level
of potential confrontation, including a direct hotline between the US and Soviet leaders. “Once things get serious here, [there is] nothing to slow
things down . On the contrary, you have all the incentives to go first ,” he said. As a key ally to Japan and South Korea, the
United States would ultimately be involved in any escalated conflict and could play a decisive role in the region.
While Prof Ball believes it is too late for arms control mechanisms, he says it is critical that Washington ensures policy development and
admiral would not even concede that an incident had happened. “I don’t see the point of this sort of dialogue,” he added.
informed debate.
AFFIRMATIVE
***UNIQUENESS
Won’t Pass---2AC
Cuba package won’t pass – assumes PC – McConnell statements, congressional
opposition, election fears with Cuban Americans, and public fear of human rights
violations/communism
Cowan 7/12 {Richard, syndicated politics columnist, “Mitch McConnell Thinks Congress Will
Block Obama's Efforts to Engage with Cuba,” Reuters via the Huffington Post – Politics, 2015,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/12/obama-cuba-relations_n_7780432.html#THUR}
The top U.S. Senate Republican said on Sunday that Congress is likely to block any nominee that President
Barack
Obama names as ambassador to Cuba and retain broad economic sanctions, even as
Obama moves to establish diplomatic and economic ties with the Communist-run island.
McConnell, interviewed on the "Fox News Sunday" television program, said the Senate is unlikely to
confirm any U.S. ambassador to Havana nominated by Obama. McConnell added, "There are
sanctions that were imposed by Congress. I think the administration will have a hard time getting those
removed. This is a policy that there is substantial opposition to in Congress." Last December, Obama
Senate Majority Leader Mitch
announced he would use his executive powers to move toward more normal relations with Cuba after a five-decade standoff. Those steps have included establishing
diplomatic relations, an expansion of some travel from the United States to Cuba, increasing the limit on remittances to Cuban nationals from those living in the
it would be up to Congress to allow normal travel and
full trade. Republicans control both the Senate and House of Representatives. Many Republican oppose
Obama's moves toward better relations with Cuba, claiming they only bolster Cuba's communist
leaders. Republicans also fear alienating Cuban Americans in Florida who have fled the island nation and are
supporters of the Republican Party. Obama charted a new U.S. path toward Cuba with the support of some Republicans, including freshman
United States and expanding some trade in goods and services. But
Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona. Obama said in March his moves were already paying dividends, saying that since December the Cuban government had begun
McConnell has been a consistent critic of Obama
discussing ways to reorganize its economy.
on a range of foreign policy fronts,
including Cuba and U.S. participation in multilateral nuclear talks with Iran. "This president has been involved in ... talking to a lot of countries: talk, talk, talk. And
Cuba is a good example. He thinks that simply by engaging with them we get a positive result," McConnell said, adding, "I don't see any indication that Cubans are
Human rights advocates have admonished Cuba for abuses, including arbitrary
imprisonment of political opponents, and Cuba's tight control of its economy also has been a lightning rod
going to change their behavior."
for criticism.
Won’t Pass---1AR
Won’t pass – Congressional controversy and opposition statements
Zampa 7/13 {Peter, syndicated Washington correspondent, B.S. in broadcast journalism
(Boston University), “Senators react to re-established relations with Cuba,” ABC – WBKO,
2015, http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/Senators-react-to-re-established-relations-withCuba--314798981.html#THUR}
The United States is moving towards normalizing
relations in Cuba and the topic remains controversial . President
Obama’s announcement re-establishing diplomatic ties in Havana has inspired questions on Capitol Hill.
Some lawmakers are saying it’s about time, others think there is still more work to be done. The
announcement came during an historic yet polarizing week for President Obama. What’s raising the
most doubts about renewed relations? The Castro regime. Montana Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) thinks the mutual
benefits will outweigh the oppressive government. "The people are very good people from my snapshot of when I was in the country," said
Tester. "And I think that how you get an oppressive regime in this particular case, and now this is different in different areas of the world, but in
this particular case, to be less oppressive, is to show them success." Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), a
member on the
Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, would’ve liked to see improvements before the two
intertwine once again. "The people who have a vested interest in Cuba, the Cuban Americans in South Florida,
those who have relatives who are imprisoned in Cuba still to this day, whose Civil Rights have been violated - they
need those answers first before we establish the relationship," said Isakson. The White House acknowledges
the U.S. is still dealing with a Castro regime as it was in 1961, but that it doesn’t serve U.S. or Cuban interests pushing the island nation towards
collapse. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
said in an interview with "Fox News Sunday" that the President is going
to have a tough time lifting economic sanctions in Cuba as Congress is likely to reject
the effort .
Won’t pass – it’s an “uphill climb” – we have conclusive evidence
Wright 7/12 {Austin, defense reporter for Politico, graduate of the College of William and
Mary, “McConnell sees Congress balking at new relations with Cuba,” 2015,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/mcconnell-sees-congress-balking-at-new-relations-withcuba-119994.html#ixzz3fsZ7kMKC#THUR}
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
says President Barack Obama faces an uphill climb in getting
Congress to go along with his plans to normalize relations with Cuba. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the
Kentucky Republican said there was little chance the Senate would confirm a a new U.S.
ambassador to Cuba, or lift the long-standing economic sanctions imposed on the Communist island nation. “He
thinks that simply by engaging with them we get a positive result,” McConnell said of the president. “I
don’t see any evidence Cuba’s going to change its behavior.”
Won’t pass until 2018 – GOP backlash and fear of Castro – public sentiment isn’t
strong enough to counter it
Beatty 7/1 {Andrew, politics correspondent for AFP/Reuters/Economist, B.A. in philosophy
(Queen's University Belfast), “U.S., Cuba Agree to Restore Ties, Embassies to Reopen,” Digital
Journal, 2015, http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/us-proposes-us-cuba-reopenembassies-as-of-july-20-havana/article/437226#THUR}
Polls show a majority of Americans support Obama's efforts to improve ties. But opponents could yet pose
problems for further rapprochement. Republican presidential candidates who have ties to Cuba,
including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, have been outspoken in their opposition to the thaw. Rubio,
a senator from Florida, accused Obama of giving concessions as Cuba continued to stifle democracy. "It is time for our
unilateral concessions to this odious regime to end," he said. " I intend to oppose the confirmation of an
ambassador to Cuba until these issues are addressed." Cruz, from Texas, said he would "work to
disapprove any new funds for embassy construction in Havana." "Unless and until," he added, "the president can
demonstrate that he has made some progress in alleviating the misery of our friends, the people of Cuba."
If these procedural hurdles will be difficult, lifting the embargo will be an uphill battle ,
according to analyst Diego Moya-Ocampos of IHS Country Risk. "Key sanctions are unlikely to be fully
removed until the US Congress lifts the US embargo on Cuba, something
unlikely to take
place before 2018 when incumbent president Raul Castro is expected to step down," he said.
Won’t Pass---1AR---A2: Vote Count
Cuba bills won’t pass because of bipartisan opposition and empirics – reject their
assertion of a vote count – White House representatives concede it hasn’t happened
yet
Hanly 7/5 {Ken, politics columnist, former professor, “Obama Faces Opposition to Opening
Embassy in Cuba,” Digital Journal, 2015, http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/obamafaces-opposition-to-opening-embassy-in-cuba/article/437566#THUR}
While Cuba and the U nited S tates reached a deal at the end of June to reopen embassies, Obama is facing
opposition to the move both from his own party and Republicans . Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat
from New Jersey claimed the move is not in the U.S. national interest. On the Republican side, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arizona
claimed the move to normalize relations with Cuba was "appeasement of dictators ". The speaker of the House of
Representatives, Republican John Boehner argues that U.S.-Cuba relations should not be revised at all, let alone
normalized. Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham said he would make closing the embassy his
top priority if elected president. In order to normalize relations with Cuba, the White House needs Congress to
agree to the move, approve an ambassador, lift the embargo on Cuba, and fund the embassy. Senator
Cotton is planning, along with supporters in Senate , to try to block funding for the embassy, and also block
approval of anyone nominated as ambassador. Cotton said he would continue to do so "until
there is a real, fundamental change that gives hope to the oppressed people of Cuba." His
Democratic ally Sen. Menendez said: “An already one-sided deal that benefits the Cuban regime is
becoming all the more lopsided, The message is democracy and human rights take a back seat to
a legacy initiative.” Opposition to normalization is not new as the House already passed a motion to
keep current travel restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba, blocking Obama's attempt to ease the
restrictions. The motion passed by a 247-176 vote. In another bill passed through the House, a bill funding the
State Department at the same time prohibits the department from using the funds to build a new
embassy in Cuba. The Obama administrations wants $6 million to upgrade a current building in Havana in order to turn it into a functioning embassy. A
summary of the House bill said:“The bill includes a prohibition on funds for an embassy or other diplomatic facility in Cuba, beyond what was in existence prior to
the President’s December announcement proposing changes to the U.S.-Cuba policy." A senior State Dept. official criticized the opposition as being
counterproductive: “It would be a shame if Congress impeded implementation of some of the very things that we think they – we all agree we want to do, such as
better outreach to the Cuban people all over the island or additional..These are the kinds of things that we can do as we move forward in this relationship with a more
robust embassy. And I would assume that most on the Hill agree those are a good thing to do.” White House press secretary, Josh
Earnest, told
reporters that he thought that there was strong support for lifting the embargo on Cuba although
he had not done a "whip count."
***THUMPER
Iran---2AC
Iran thumps the DA – Obama pushing hard, it costs mad capital, and it’s top of the
docket
Kevin Liptak, 7/14/15, Kevin Liptak is the CNN White House Producer, “Now that he has a
deal with Iran, Obama must face Congress,” http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/irannuclear-deal-congress-obama-block/
Obama has ticked off
another legacy-making item on his checklist -- as long as Congress doesn't get in his way.¶ Early
Tuesday, Obama launched a sales pitch to lawmakers who remain deeply skeptical of the
nuclear deal. But while Congress retains the ability to nullify Obama's accord with Tehran, the high bar for action on Capitol Hill -Washington (CNN)With a historic deal meant to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions in place, President Barack
including building veto-proof majorities in just over two months -- will make it difficult for opponents to block the President. ¶ In its most
simplistic form, the deal means that in exchange for limits on its nuclear activities, Iran would get relief from sanctions while being allowed to
continue its atomic program for peaceful purposes. Many
of the more technical points of the deal weren't available
Tuesday morning, and specifics could prove to be red flags for skeptical members of
Congress, many of whom said they were still reviewing the specifics of the plan.¶ Congress has 60 days to review the
deal, and if it opposes it can pass a resolution of disapproval to block its implementation. The
administration now has five days to certify the agreement and formally present the deal to
Capitol Hill. The clock on that 60 day period will not start until the official document is delivered to Capitol Hill. ¶ The Republican
controlled House has the votes to pass a resolution, but in the Senate Republicans would need to
attract support from a half a dozen Democrats.¶ Because President Obama has already pledged
to veto any bill to block the deal GOP leaders would need to convince enough Democrats to
join with them to override his veto -- a heavy lift. How the public views the deal will be critical, as Members of Congress
will be back home for several weeks this summer before any vote. ¶ While Obama on Tuesday said he welcomed a
"robust" debate over the deal's merits, he issued a warning to lawmakers considering blocking
the agreement, bluntly threatening to veto any measure that would prevent the deal from
going into effect.¶ "Precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics," he said in an address from the White House.
"Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems. Hard nosed diplomacy, leadership that
has united the world's major powers, offers a more effective way of verifying Iran is not pursuing
a nuclear weapon."¶ Like the completion earlier this month of a diplomatic renewal with Cuba, the deal with Iran provides Obama a
tentative foreign policy achievement in the final year-and-a-half of his presidency. Both are built on the premise of engaging traditional U.S. foes,
a vow Obama made at the very beginning of his presidency when he declared to hostile nations the United States would "extend a hand if you are
willing to unclench your fist."¶ The deal -- which was finalized after almost two years of talks -- provides vindication for an administration that's
sought to emphasize diplomacy over military force.¶ Burns: "If we get a deal, we'll have to contain Iranian power" ¶ Burns: "If
we get a deal, we'll have to contain Iranian power" 02:44 ¶ PLAY VIDEO¶ "This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real
and meaningful change," Obama said Tuesday, adding later that the deal "offers an opportunity to move in a new direction." ¶ But even Obama
himself has admitted there are risks inherent in striking an accord with a sworn U.S. enemy. Lawmakers, many deeply wary of those risks, now
have 60 days to digest the provisions included in the deal with Iran, a two-month review period Congress insisted upon as the negotiations
unfolded.¶ Obama was initially resistant to any congressional review of the Iran pact. But faced
with overwhelming support
among lawmakers for some kind of evaluation period, the White House ultimately conceded
that Congress could be able to review the final deal before it takes full effect.¶ It won't be easy for Congress
to inflict damage on the agreement. They must act quickly -- and the two-month period in which they can
scuttle the plan includes a month-long August recess, and only a handful of working days.¶ Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker told reporters Monday he expects to start hearings sometime
shortly after the 60-day clock begins -- which will come sometime in the next five days, after
the Director of National Intelligence completes a number of certifications to Congress about the
deal, including that it meets U.S. non-proliferation objectives and does not jeopardize U.S.
national security.¶ Corker said he wants first to ensure senators have ample time to read the
agreement and its classified annexes so they are "well versed" before hearing from the
administration and any outside experts he plans to call to testify.¶ Corker said he would like to
complete hearings before the August recess -- which begins Aug. 7 -- so lawmakers have the
recess to consider their positions. Under this scenario, up or down votes on the deal itself would not happen until mid-September,
he said.¶ In the House, a similar process and timeframe is also expected.¶ Within the 60-day span, opponents of the measure
must rally votes to either enact new sanctions against Iran, or to disallow Obama from easing
sanctions as part of the deal, measures the President would veto .¶ Overriding the veto in Congress would
require a two-thirds majority -- meaning in the Senate, Obama must only secure a minimum of 34
votes in order for his deal to take effect. Additional time beyond the 60-day review period is included for Obama to veto any
legislation, and for Congress to muster support for an override.¶ If lawmakers fail to pass any new restrictions during the review period -- which
ends in mid-September -- the deal will go into place, and sanctions will be lifted in Iran. ¶ Obama: Iran's path to nuclear weapons will be cut
off¶ Obama: Iran's path to nuclear weapons will be cut off 04:21 ¶ PLAY VIDEO¶ But among deeply skeptical senators, who worry about Iran's
support for terror groups and incarceration of Americans, even 34 Democratic votes in support of Obama aren't necessarily assured.¶ "
Iran---1AR---A2: No Controversy
Iran causes massive fights – creams PC
Kevin Liptak, 7/14/15, Kevin Liptak is the CNN White House Producer, “Now that he has a
deal with Iran, Obama must face Congress,” http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/irannuclear-deal-congress-obama-block/
Over this August recess there's going to be fast-and-furious lobbying , and we don't know whether there will
be 34 votes," said former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.¶ 'A flawed
perspective'¶ In the hours and days before the deal was announced, Republicans
and Democrats alike expressed doubt
the plan would be received warmly on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been voicing
concern about Obama's desire to lift sanctions on Iran for the entirety of the nearly two-year
negotiations.¶ On Monday, the Obama administration claimed it was Republicans who would
find themselves at a political disadvantage if they attempt a takedown of a deal that could end
Iran's nuclear program.¶ "When it comes to a tough sell, I think the tough sell is going to be on the part of Republicans if they try to
tank the deal," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.¶ But in the aftermath of the deal's announcement,
Republicans vowed a tough examination of the agreement.¶ "The comprehensive nuclear
agreement announced today appears to further the flawed elements of April's interim
agreement because the Obama administration approached these talks from a flawed
perspective : reaching the best deal acceptable to Iran, rather than actually advancing our national
goal of ending Iran's nuclear program," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.¶ Arkansas Sen.
Tom Cotton, who, along with 46 Republican senators, authored a controversial open letter to Iranian leaders in
March that warned them that a nuclear deal could be modified or abandoned by a future President, said the agreement was a
"grievous, dangerous mistake ."¶ "It will give Iran tens of billions of dollars to finance (Iran's) sponsorship
of terrorism against the United States and our allies," Cotton said in a statement. "It will lift embargoes on
conventional weapons and ballistic-missile sales to Iran. And, ultimately, it will pave the way for
Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. If this deal is approved, it will represent a historic defeat for
the United States ."¶ Corker, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said in a statement that he begins "from
a place of deep skepticism " as he prepares to read the agreement, adding that his committee "will conduct a
rigorous review."¶ New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has led
Democratic opposition to the administration's Iran plans for months . On Tuesday, he told CNN's Joe
Johns that he was disappointed in what he said was the deal's lack of "anytime, anywhere inspections," which he "thought was
something that was one of our red lines." He added that the agreement still preserves Iran's nuclear infrastructure but held out hope that "there can
be an effort to get a better deal."¶ "The
bottom line is: The deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program -- it
preserves it," he said later in a statement.¶ Obama admits risk s¶ But the potential for Iran to renege on its agreements isn't a
concern only of the plan's opponents; Obama himself admitted there were risks to any deal in an interview earlier this year. ¶ Israeli anger at Iran
nuclear deal¶ Israeli anger at Iran nuclear deal 01:36¶ PLAY VIDEO¶ "Look, 20 years from now, I'm still going to be around, God willing. If Iran
has a nuclear weapon, it's my name on this," he told The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. "I think it's fair to say that in addition to our profound
national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down."¶ Obama's stake in the Iran deal may only become more apparent after
he leaves office; as in his diplomatic thaw with Cuba, the effects on ordinary citizens in those countries won't be seen for several years.¶ He
addressed the long-term prospects of success on Tuesday, saying the person who succeeds him in office -- and even the president after that -- will
continue to enjoy the benefits of the deal.¶ "The same options available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future," Obama
said. "I have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with Iran further away from
a weapon."
Deal causes a swell of backlash – litany of warrants
David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon, 7/14/15, David E. Sanger is chief Washington
correspondent of The New York Times and Michael R. Gordon writes for the New York Times,
“Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Built on Verification,’ Obama Says,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-longnegotiations.html
Almost as soon as the agreement was announced, to cheers in Vienna and on the streets of Tehran, its harshest
critics said it would ultimately empower Iran rather than limit its capability. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,
called it a “historic mistake ” that would create a “terrorist nuclear superpower.”¶ A review of the 109-page
text of the agreement, which includes five annexes, showed that the United States preserved – and in some cases extended – the nuclear restrictions it sketched out
it left open areas that are sure to raise fierce objections in
Congress. It preserves Iran’s ability to produce as much nuclear fuel as it wishes after year 15 of the
agreement, and allows it to conduct research on advanced centrifuges after the eighth year. Moreover, the
Iranians won the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles
– a step the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, warned about just last week.¶ American
with Iran in early April in Lausanne, Switzerland.¶ Yet,
officials said the core of the agreement, secured in 18 consecutive days of talks here, lies in the restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep for the
next 15 years. The current stockpile of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia. That limit, combined with a
two-thirds reduction in the number of its centrifuges, would extend to a year the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough material for a single bomb should it
abandon the accord and race for a weapon — what officials call “breakout time.” By comparison, analysts say Iran now has a breakout time of two to three months.
Iran---1AR---A2: No Obama Push
Yes Obama push – statements and veto threat prove
David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon, 7/14/15, David E. Sanger is chief Washington
correspondent of The New York Times and Michael R. Gordon writes for the New York Times,
“Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Built on Verification,’ Obama Says,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-longnegotiations.html
VIENNA — Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States said they had reached a historic accord on Tuesday to significantly limit
Tehran’s nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions. ¶ The
deal culminates 20
months of negotiations on an agreement that President Obama had long sought as the biggest
diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Whether it portends a new relationship between the United States and Iran —
after decades of coups, hostage-taking, terrorism and sanctions — remains a bigger question.¶ Mr. Obama, in an early morning
appearance at the White House that was broadcast live in Iran, began what promised to be an
arduous effort to sell the deal to Congress and the American public, saying the
agreement is “not built on trust — it is built on verification.”¶ President Obama said he would veto
any legislation that would block the nuclear agreement with Iran.Congress to Start Review of Iran Nuclear
DealJULY 14, 2015¶ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said on Tuesday that the accord with Iran would allow
Tehran to continue Netanyahu Denounces Iran Nuclear Deal as a ‘Historic Mistake’JULY 14, 2015¶ An oil refinery in Tehran. Iran has
the world’s fourth-largest proven reserves of oil, behind Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Canada.To Tap Iran’s Oil, Companies Face Many Hurdles
but an Eventual BoonJULY 14, 2015¶ video I.A.E.A. Head Confirms Iran Nuclear PlanJULY 14, 2015 ¶ Mr. Obama
made it
abundantly clear that he would fight to preserve the deal from critics in Congress who are
beginning a 60-day review, declaring, “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful
implementation of this deal.Ӧ
***IMPACT
Impact Defense---AIDS
No disease impact—intervening actors, empirics, this ain’t 1918 yo
Zakaria 9 (Editor of Newsweek, BA from Yale, PhD in pol sci, Harvard. He serves on the
board of Yale University, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and
Shakespeare and Company. Named "one of the 21 most important people of the 21st Century",
Fareed, “The Capitalist Manifesto: Greed Is Good,” 13 June 2009,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/201935)
Note: Laurie Garrett is a science and health writer, winner of the Pulitzer, Polk, and Peabody
Prize
After bracing ourselves for a global pandemic, we've suffered
the usual seasonal influenza. Three weeks ago the World Health Organization declared a health emergency, warning countries to "prepare
for a pandemic" and said that the only question was the extent of worldwide damage. Senior officials prophesied that millions could be
infected by the disease. But as of last week, the WHO had confirmed only 4,800 cases of swine flu, with 61 people
having died of it. Obviously, these low numbers are a pleasant surprise, but it does make one wonder, what did we get wrong? Why did the predictions of a
pandemic turn out to be so exaggerated? Some people blame an overheated media, but it would have been difficult to ignore major international
health organizations and governments when they were warning of catastrophe. I think there is a broader mistake in the way we look at the
world. Once we see a problem, we can describe it in great detail, extrapolating all its possible consequences. But we can rarely anticipate the
It certainly looks like another example of crying wolf.
something more like
human response to that crisis . Take swine flu. The virus had crucial characteristics that led
researchers to worry that it could spread far and fast. They described—and the media reported—what would happen if it went
unchecked. But it did not go unchecked. In fact, swine flu was met by an extremely vigorous
response at its epicenter, Mexico. The Mexican government reacted quickly and massively, quarantining the
infected population, testing others, providing medication to those who needed it. The noted expert on this subject, Laurie Garrett, says, "We
should all stand up and scream, 'Gracias, Mexico!' because the Mexican people and the Mexican government have sacrificed on a level that I'm not sure as Americans we
would be prepared to do in the exact same circumstances. They shut down their schools. They shut down businesses, restaurants, churches, sporting events. They basically paralyzed
their own economy. They've suffered billions of dollars in financial losses still being tallied up, and thereby really brought transmission to a halt."
Every time one of these viruses is detected, writers and officials bring up the Spanish influenza epidemic
of 1918 in which millions of people died. Indeed, during the last pandemic scare, in 2005, President George W. Bush claimed that he had been reading a history of the Spanish flu to
help him understand how to respond. But the world we live in today looks nothing like 1918. Public health-care
systems are far better and more widespread than anything that existed during the First World War. Even Mexico, a developing
country, has a first-rate public-health system—far better than anything Britain or France had in the early 20th century.
AIDS won’t cause extinction
Posner 5 (Senior Lecturer, U Chicago Law. Judge on the US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit. AB
from Yale and LLB from Harvard. (Richard, Catastrophe,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4150331/Catastrophe-the-dozen-most-significant.html)
Yet the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of
its existence is a source of genuine comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues,
such as the Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none
has come close to destroying the entire human race.
There is a biological reason . Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality; they are
fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if the germs do
not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural,
that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no
danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race . The likelihood of a natural pandemic that
would cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when
people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more
difficult to localize an infectious disease.
Alt causes to AIDS spread
Brower 3 (Jennifer, science/technology policy analyst, and Peter Chalk, political scientist,
Summer Rand Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, “Vectors Without Borders,”
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/vectors.html)
This year's outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Beijing, Hong Kong, Taipei, and Toronto is only one of the more recent
examples of the challenge posed by infectious diseases. Highly
resilient varieties of age-old ailments— as well as virulent emerging
now prevalent throughout the world. These illnesses include cholera, pneumonia, malaria, and dysentery in
the former case and Legionnaires' disease, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), Ebola, and SARS in the latter.
pathogens—are
In the United States, West Nile virus entered New York in 2000 and then spread to 44 states by 2002, and monkey pox struck the Midwest this
June. In the latter half of the 20th century, almost 30
new human diseases were identified. The spread of several
of them has been expedited by the growth of antibiotic and drug resistance. Globalization,
modern medical practices, urbanization, climate change, sexual promiscuity, intravenous drug
use, and acts of bioterrorism further increase the likelihood that people will come into contact
with potentially fatal diseases.
Impact Defense---AIDS---Ext---No Extinction
AIDS won’t kill everyone
Caldwell, 03 (Joseph George, PhD, “The End of the World, and the New World Order”, 3-6,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm)
It is clear that HIV/AIDS will not accomplish this – it is not even having a
significant impact on slowing the population explosion in Africa, where prevalence rates reach
over thirty percent in some countries. But a real killer plague could certainly wipe out mankind. The interesting thing about
plagues, however, is that they never seem to kill everyone – historically, the mortality rate is never 100
per cent (from disease alone). Based on historical evidence, it would appear that, while plagues may
certainly reduce human population, they are not likely to wipe it out entirely. This notwithstanding, the
Disease could wipe out mankind.
gross intermingling of human beings and other species that accompanies globalization nevertheless increases the likelihood of global diseases to
high levels.
AIDS will evolve reduced virulence over time
Levin, 96 (Bruce R., Emory University, "The Evolution and Maintenance of Virulence in
Microparasites" Emerging Infectious Diseases v. 2
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol2no2/levin.htm)
The predictions that can be made on the basis of the current view of the evolution of virulence differ from predictions that might follow conventional wisdom because
natural selection in the parasite population to favor the evolution and maintenance
of some level of virulence. Moreover, even when there is a positive association between a parasite’s virulence and its transmissibility, under the
the new view allows for
conditions described in the following paragraph, the predictions of new methods can still converge with those of conventional wisdom. If the density of the sensitive
host population is regulated by the parasite, an extension of the enlightened theory predicts that natural selection in the micro parasite population can lead to
declining
virulence can be drawn from models of the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. During the epidemic
phase of a micro parasitic infection, when the host population is composed primarily of
susceptible hosts, selection favors parasites with high transmission rates and thus high virulence.
As the epidemic spreads, the proportion of infected and immune hosts increases and the density
of susceptible hosts declines. As a result, the capacity for infectious transmission becomes
progressively less important to the parasite’s Darwinian fitness and persistence in the host
population. Selection now favors less virulent parasites that take longer to kill their host and, for
that reason, are maintained in the host population for more extensive periods. Analogous arguments have been
continuous declines in the level of virulence, possibly to immeasurable values. Although not stated in this general way, the same conclusion about
made for the latent period of a bacteriophage infection, the evolution of lysogeny, the tradeoff between vertical and horizontal transmission, and the advantages of
micro parasite latency in general.
AIDS won’t cause extinction
TNR, 95 (The New Republic, 95 (Malcolm Gladwell, “Plague Year, July, L/N)
Some of the blame for this transformation clearly belongs with aids, the epidemic that has more or less shattered the public's confidence in the
power of science. But aids
has never been seen as a threat to the entire species. In fact, aids is exactly the
opposite of the kind of random, uncontrollable epidemic that seems to have now seized the
popular imagination. The truth is that it is very hard to find an adequate explanation for the current American obsession. Joshua
Lederberg's comment that we are worse off today than a century ago is proof only that he is a better student of microbiology than of history.
Impact Defense---Nuc Terror
No nuclear terrorism – Theoretical possibilities are irrelevant – too many steps,
which make it functionally impossible
Chapman 12 (Stephen, editorial writer for Chicago Tribune, “CHAPMAN: Nuclear terrorism
unlikely,” May 22, http://www.oaoa.com/articles/chapman-87719-nuclear-terrorism.html)
A layperson may figure it’s only a matter of time before the unimaginable comes to pass. Harvard’s Graham Allison, in his book “Nuclear
Terrorism,” concludes, “On the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable.” But remember: Afxter
Sept. 11, 2001, we all
thought more attacks were a certainty. Yet al-Qaida and its ideological kin have proved unable to mount
a second strike. Given their inability to do something simple — say, shoot up a shopping mall or
set off a truck bomb — it’s reasonable to ask whether they have a chance at something much
more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a presentation at the University of
Chicago, “the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be
vanishingly small.” The events required to make that happen comprise a multitude of Herculean tasks.
First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia’s inventory of decommissioned
warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing. Besides, those devices are probably
no longer a danger, since weapons that are not maintained quickly become what one expert calls “radioactive scrap metal.” If
terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes
and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a
bomb to an ally — for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require
help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. Then comes the task of
building a bomb. It’s not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your
garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment — plus people with
specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. Assuming the jihadists vault over those
Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in contraband
all the time — but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion. This, like every other step in
the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what’s going on, multiplying
the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up. That has heartening implications. If al-Qaida embarks on the
project, it has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the formidable odds, it probably won’t bother.
None of this means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist communications and
improving port screening. But it offers good reason to think that in this war, it appears, the
worst eventuality is one that will
never happen.
No nuclear retaliation – Obama is different
Babbin 9 (Jed, Editor of Human Events, “How Will Obama Handle Military Challenges?”
Human Events, Feb. 2.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20090202/ai_n31362464/pg_7/?tag=content;col1
)
If another major terrorist attack causes mass casualties in America, what will Obama do? If al Qaeda,
which limits itself to big attacks, manages another, Obama will find himself in the same quandary that Bush did. We have put enormous resources into interrupting terrorist financing and in
trying to capture or kill bin Laden and Zawahri, his second in command. Obama will not be able to do more. Obama, like John Kerry before him, does not understand how Presidents have to act
on the basis of information that's reliable and not wait for conclusive evidence. Obama wants to focus on domestic issues and let his advisors keep the world at bay. If the source of the attack is
disputed, Obama will have to rely on his own judgment and his Clinton-era advisors as well as Defense Secretary Gates and National Security Advisor Jones. But Obama's judgment lacking any
It's unimaginable that he would decide to act on evidence that
wouldn't hold up in court. If we suffer another major terrorist attack and the source of the attack
is unclear, Barack Obama will likely give impassioned speeches, and rely on the UN and other
nations to deal with the perpetrators. The media and Obama himself are trying to paint him as the second coming of Abraham
context of experience- is a lawyer's judgment, just like Bill Clinton's.
Lincoln. Lincoln chose to do everything and anything to preserve the Union. That commitment and decisiveness are not part of the character of
our 44th President.
Impact Defense---Nuc Terror---Ext---No Terror
Risk is overstated – terrorists can’t get nukes and don’t want them
Hashmi 12 (Muhammad, author of “Nuclear Terrorism in Pakistan: Myth of Reality,” and
expert in defense and strategic studies, “Difficulties for Terrorists to Fabricate Nuclear
RDD/IND Weapons – Analysis,” Jan 30, http://www.eurasiareview.com/30012012-difficultiesfor-terrorists-to-fabricate-nuclear-rddind-weapons-analysis/)
Many believe that these threats of nuclear terrorism are inflated and have been overstated
because technical hurdles still prevent terrorists from acquiring or building a nuclear device. Brain
McNair argues that the threats of nuclear terrorism have been exaggerated by the world. As the matter stands today, the possibility of nuclear
terrorism remains more a fantasy than fact. Furthermore, Shireen Mazari argues that Nuclear
weapons would not be a
weapon of choice for terrorists. Instead, she claims that “terrorists already have access to enough
destructive capabilities with in conventional means, so their need for nuclear weapons is simply
not there.” Analysts have endorsed the assessment that the threat of nuclear action by terrorists
appears to be exaggerated. Similarly, religious cults and left-wing terrorists with their beliefs of certain
prohibitions against mass murder are less likely by many estimates to use WMDs in a terrorist
activity, even though there is not any guarantee that terrorists will use WMDs. It has also been witnessed that no terrorist group is known to
have developed or deployed a nuclear explosive device, and the severity of the threat of nuclear terrorism remains disputed amongst international
scholars. So it becomes too early to conclude that how grave the threats of nuclear terrorism are. James kitfield concludes in an interview from
security expert that: Seven years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, experts and presidential candidates continue to put nuclear
terrorism atop their lists of the gravest threats to the United States. Yet Brian Michael Jenkins, a longtime terrorism expert with the Rand Corp.,
says that the
threat lies more in the realms of Hollywood dramas and terrorist dreams than in reality.
There has never been an act of nuclear terrorism, he notes, yet the threat is so potentially catastrophic that it incites fear
— and that fear fulfills a terrorist’s primary goal. In nutshell, we can say that it takes much more than knowledge of
the workings of nuclear weapons and access to fissile material to successfully manufacture a
usable weapon. Current safety and security systems help ensure that the successful use of a
stolen weapon would be very unlikely. Meaning, it remains, thankfully, an incredibly challenging task for terrorists to practice
their idea in a successful way to meet their objectives.
Nuclear weapons would run counter to the goals of most terrorist organizations
Kapur 8 (associate professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval
Postgraduate School, 2008, S. Paul. The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st
Century Asia. pg. 32)
Before a terrorist group can attempt to use nuclear weapons, it must meet two basic requirements. First, the group must decide that it wishes to engage in nuclear
it is not
clear that terrorist organizations would necessarily covet nuclear devices. Although analysts
often characterize terrorism as an irrational activity (Laqeuer I999: 4-5), extensive empirical evidence
indicates that terrorist groups in fact behave rationally , adopting strategies designed to achieve particular ends
terrorism. Analysts and policy makers often assume that terrorist groups necessarily want to do so (Carter 2004; U.S. Government 2002). However,
(Crenshaw I995: 4; Pape 2003: 344). Thus whether terrorists would use nuclear weapons is contingent on whether doing so is likely to further their goals. Under
For certain types of terrorist objectives, nuclear
weapons could be too destructive. Large-scale devastation could negatively influence audiences
important to the terrorist groups. Terrorists often rely on populations sympathetic to their cause
for political, financial, and military support. The horrific destruction of a nuclear explosion could
alienate segments of this audience. People who otherwise would sympathize with the terrorists
may conclude that in using a nuclear device terrorists had gone too far and were no longer
deserving of support. The catastrophic effects of nuclear weapons could also damage or destroy the very thing that the terrorist group most values. For
example, if a terrorist organization were struggling with another group for control of their common
what circumstances could nuclear weapons fail to promote terrorists' goals?
homeland, the use of nuclear weapons against the enemy group would devastate the terrorists'
own home territory. Using nuclear weapons would be extremely counterproductive for the terrorists in this scenario.
Terrorist can’t attain nuclear weapons
Schwartz 3 ( US office director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, and
Ophir Falk, Vice President of Advanced Security Integration Ltd., 2003 (Yaron and Ophir,
”Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Terrorism” 5-13-2003
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=487)
For a terrorist group to obtain a nuclear weapon, two principal channels exist: build a device from scratch or somehow
procure or steal a ready-made one or its key components. Neither of these is likely. Of all the possibilities, constructing a bomb
from scratch, without state assistance, is the most unlikely. “So remote,” in the words of a senior
nuclear scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, “that it can be essentially ruled out.” The chief obstacle lies
not only in producing the nuclear fuel—either bomb-grade uranium or plutonium—but also the requirements for testing and securing safe havens
for the terrorists.[16] Unlike uranium, a much smaller quantity of plutonium is required to form a critical mass. Yet to make enough of it for a
workable bomb, a reactor is needed. Could terrorists buy one? Where would they build it? Could such a structure go undetected by satellites and
other intelligence tools? That is all very implausible indeed. If making nuclear-bomb fuel is out of the question, why not just steal it, or buy it on
the black market? Consider plutonium: if
terrorists did manage to procure some weapon-grade plutonium,
would their problems be over? Far from it: plutonium works only in an “implosion”-type bomb,
which is about ten times more difficult to build than the more simple uranium bomb used at
Hiroshima. Among a litany of specialized requirements is an experienced designer, a number of other specialists and a testing program.
Hence, the terrorist’s chances of getting an implosion bomb to work are very low. An alternative to stealing plutonium is bomb-grade uranium.
The problem with buying bomb-grade uranium is that one would need a great deal of it—around
50kg for a gun-type bomb—and nothing near that amount has turned up in the black market.[17]
Even when considering a country like Pakistan, the only possibility for terrorists to lay their
hands on that country’s uranium would be if its government fell under the control of
sympathizers. Given that Pakistan’s army is by far the most effective and stable organization in
the country, there is not much chance of that happening. Russia, again, is the terrorists’ best bet and therefore a
potential target. It has tons of bomb-grade uranium left over from the cold war and, in addition to bombs, has used this material to fuel nuclear
submarines and research reactors. With
a reported history of smuggling attempts, there are definite prospects
in Russia. If terrorists could strike the main deposit and get enough uranium for a bomb, they
would be on their way. But it would still be a long journey: designing and building the bomb is
anything but a trivial undertaking, as is recruiting the suitably skilled technician/s for the task.
The main risk for terrorists is getting caught. Finding an isolated location for minimal risk of detection also
would not be easy. Stealing or buying a complete bomb would circumvent the aforementioned
obstacles. But this option presents other pitfalls which are even greater: all countries, including
Russia and Pakistan (with US assistance), make ever greater efforts to safeguard their warheads and
materials, and even rogue states—if they should get the bomb (as North Korea appears to staunchly pursue)—would be highly
likely to do the same. Countries employ security measures specifically designed to prevent theft.
Warheads are typically stored in highly restricted bunkers. Terrorists would have a very hard
time trying to take over one of these and even if successful, it would be much harder to leave
with the contents in hand.[18]
Nuclear terrorism wrong – tech barriers
Mueller, 10 (John Mueller is Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and the
author of "The Remnants of War. Foreign Policy –JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010 –
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/ 01/04/think_again_nuclear_weapons?page=0,2)
"Fabricating a Bomb Is 'Child's Play.'" Hardly. An editorialist in Nature, the esteemed scientific journal, did apply that
characterization to the manufacture of uranium bombs, as opposed to plutonium bombs, last January, but even that seems an absurd exaggeration.
Younger, the former Los Alamos research director, has expressed his amazement at how "selfdeclared 'nuclear weapons experts,' many of whom have never seen a real nuclear weapon,"
continue to "hold forth on how easy it is to make a functioning nuclear explosive." Uranium is
"exceptionally difficult to machine," he points out, and "plutonium is one of the most complex
metals ever discovered, a material whose basic properties are sensitive to exactly how it is
processed." Special technology is required, and even the simplest weapons require precise
tolerances. Information on the general idea for building a bomb is available online, but none of
it, Younger says, is detailed enough to "enable the confident assembly of a real nuclear
explosive." A failure to appreciate the costs and difficulties of a nuclear program has led to
massive overestimations of the ability to fabricate nuclear weapons. As the 2005 Silberman-Robb commission,
set up to investigate the intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war, pointed out, it is "a fundamental analytical error" to
equate "procurement activity with weapons system capability." That is, "simply because a state can
buy the parts does not mean it can put them together and make them work." For example, after
three decades of labor and well over $100 million in expenditures, Libya was unable to make any
progress whatsoever toward an atomic bomb. Indeed, much of the country's nuclear material,
surrendered after it abandoned its program, was still in the original boxes.
Impact Defense---Nuc Terror---Ext---No Retaliation
Obama won’t use nukes
AP 7 (“Obama says no nuclear weapons to fight terror”)
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama
said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any
circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for
us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added,
"Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
The US would be unlikely to retaliate against a nuclear attack from a non-state
actor
Rosen 6 (Stephen Peter, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military
Affairs and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University,
“After Proliferation: What to Do If More States Go Nuclear” Sept/Oct, Foreign Affairs)
Preparations
could thus be made for retaliation, and this helped deter first strikes. In a multipolar nuclear
Middle East, however, such logic might not hold. For deterrence to work in such an
environment, there would have to be detection systems that could unambiguously determine
whether a nuclear-armed ballistic missile was launched from, say, Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. In
earlier decades, the United States spent an enormous amount of resources on over-the-horizon radars and satellites that
could detect the origin of missile launches in the Soviet Union. But those systems were optimized to monitor the Soviet
Union and may not be as effective at identifying launches conducted from other countries. It may be technically simple for the United
During the Cold War, the small number of nuclear states meant that the identity of any nuclear attacker would be obvious.
States (or Israel or Saudi Arabia) to deploy such systems, but until they exist and their effectiveness is demonstrated, deterrence might well be
weak; it
would be difficult to retaliate against a bomb that has no clear return address.
The public won’t demand retaliation – studies prove
Jenks-Smith and Herron 5 (Hank and Kerry, professor and adjunct professor at George Bush
School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, “United States Public
Response to Terrorism: Fault Lines or Bedrock?” Review of Policy Research. September. Lexis)
Our final contrasting set of expectations relates to the degree to which the public will support or demand retribution against terrorists and
supporting states. Here our data show that support
for using conventional U nited S tates military force to retaliate
against terrorists initially averaged above midscale, but did not reach a high level of demand for military
action. Initial support declined significantly across all demographic and belief categories by the time of our survey in 2002. Furthermore,
panelists both in 2001 and 2002 preferred that high levels of certainty about culpability (above 8.5 on a scale
from zero to ten) be established before taking military action. Again, we find the weight of evidence supporting revisionist
expectations of public opinion. Overall, these results are inconsistent with the contention that highly charged
events will result in volatile and unstructured responses among mass publics that prove problematic for
policy processes. The initial response to the terrorist strikes demonstrated a broad and consistent shift in public assessments toward a greater
perceived threat from terrorism, and greater willingness to support policies to reduce that threat. But even
in the highly charged
context of such a serious attack on the American homeland, the overall public response was quite measured. On
average, the public showed very little propensity to undermine speech protections, and initial willingness to engage in
military retaliation moderated significantly over the following year.
Impact Defense---Hotspots
No impact – we’ve survived periods of low readiness
NSN, 8 (National Security Network 8 (May 13, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/850)
Our military is second to none, but eight years of negligence, lack
of accountability, and a reckless war in Iraq
have left our ground forces facing shortfalls in both recruitment and readiness. Every service
is out of balance and ill-prepared. We need a new strategy to give the military the tools it needs for the challenges we face
today. And we need leadership that meets our obligations to the men and women who put their lives on the line. Overview The U.S. military
is a fighting force second to none. It didn’t get that way by accident – it took decades of careful stewardship by civilian as well as military
leaders in the Pentagon, the White House, and on Capitol Hill. But eight years of Administration recklessness, and a lack of oversight from
conservatives on Capitol Hill, have put the military under enormous strain. Active-duty generals at the highest levels have said that “the
current demand for our forces is not sustainable… We can’t sustain the all-volunteer force at the pace that we are
going on right now” (Army Chief of Staff George Casey, April 2008); that in terms of readiness, many brigades being
sent back to Afghanistan and Iraq were “not where they need to be” (Army Vice-Chief of Staff Richard
Cody, SASC subcommittee hearing, April 14, 2008); and that “we cannot now meet extra force requirements in
places like Afghanistan” (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen on National Public Radio, April 2008). Readiness and
Response: Two-thirds of the Army – virtually all of the brigades not currently deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq – are rated “not combat
ready.” The dramatic equipment shortages of a few years ago have been improved but not completely remedied. Recruitment and Retention:
These conditions of service, and the strains they place on military family members, have
hindered Army efforts (and to a lesser extent those of the Marine Corps) to recruit and retain the requisite
number and quantity of service members. The Army has been forced to lower its educational
and moral standards and allow an increasing number of felons into its ranks. It is also struggling to
keep junior officers, the brains of the force, who represent the height of the military’s investment in its people – and whose willingness to
stay on represents a crucial judgment on Administration policies. The Marine Corps, America’s emergency 911 force, is under similar strain.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps said in February 2008 that the Marines will not be able to maintain a long term presence in both
Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard and Reserve are already suffering from severe shortages of equipment and available combat
personnel. In many states, the Army National Guard would struggle to respond to a natural or man-made disaster – just as the Kansas
National Guard struggled to respond to the severe tornados last year. How, and whether, we rebuild our military in the wake of the fiasco in
Iraq will likely shape it for the next generation. Too
much of our military posture is left over from the Cold
War. Our forces are being ground down by low-tech insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and the most immediate threat confronting the U.S. is a terrorist network that possesses no
tanks or aircraft. We must learn the lessons of Iraq and dramatically transform our military into a 21st century fighting force ready to
confront the threats of today and tomorrow.
Impact Defense---Hotspots---A2: Africa
African war doesn’t escalate
Barrett 5 (Robert, Ph.D. Student in the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies – University of
Calgary, “Understanding the Challenges of African Democratization through Conflict Analysis”,
6-1, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=726162)
Westerners eager to promote democracy must be wary of African politicians who promise democratic reform without sincere commitment to the process. Offering money to corrupt leaders in
exchange for their taking small steps away from autocracy may in fact be a way of pushing countries into anocracy. As such, world financial lenders and interventionists who wield leverage and
influence must take responsibility in considering the ramifications of African nations who adopt democracy in order to maintain elite political privileges. The obvious reason for this, aside from
the potential costs in human life should conflict arise from hastily constructed democratic reforms, is the fact that Western donors, in the face of intrastate war would then be faced with
channeling funds and resources away from democratization efforts and toward conflict intervention based on issues of human security. This is a problem, as Western nations may be increasingly
the
West continues to be somewhat reluctant to get to get involved in Africa’s dirty wars, evidenced by
its political hesitation when discussing ongoing sanguinary grassroots conflicts in Africa. Even as the world apologizes
for bearing witness to the Rwandan genocide without having intervened, the U nited S tates, recently using the label ‘genocide’ in the
context of the Sudanese conflict (in September of 2004), has only proclaimed sanctions against Sudan, while
dismissing any suggestions at actual intervention (Giry, 2005). Part of the problem is that traditional military
and diplomatic approaches at separating combatants and enforcing ceasefires have yielded little in Africa. No
wary of intervening in Africa hotspots after experiencing firsthand the unpredictable and unforgiving nature of societal warfare in both Somalia and Rwanda. On a costbenefit basis,
powerful nations want to get embroiled in conflicts they cannot win – especially those conflicts
in which the intervening nation has very little interest .
Their nuclear escalation claim is empirically denied by dozens of African conflicts
Docking, 7 (Tim Docking, African Affairs Specialist with the United States Institute of Peace,
2007, Taking Sides Clashing Views on African Issues, p. 372)
Nowhere was the scope and intensity of violence during the 1990s as great as in Africa. While the
general trend of armed conflict in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East fell during the 1989-99 period, the
1990s witnessed an increase in the number of conflicts on the African continent. During this period,
16 UN peacekeeping missions were sent to Africa. (Three countries-Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Angola-were visited by multiple missions
during this time.) Furthermore, this period saw internal and interstate violence in a total of 30 sub-Saharan states. In
1999 alone, the
continent was plagued by 16 armed conflicts, seven of which were wars with more than 1,000 battle-related deaths
(Journal of Peace Research, 37:5, 2000, p. 638). In 2000, the situation continued to deteriorate: renewed heavy fighting between Eritrea and
Ethiopia claimed tens of thousands of lives in the lead-up to a June ceasefire and ultimately the signing of a peace accord in December;
continued violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sierra Leone, Burundi, Angola, Sudan, Uganda, and Nigeria as well as the
outbreak of new violence between Guinea and Liberia, in Zimbabwe, and in the Ivory Coast have brought new hardship and bloodshed to the
continent.
Outside powers won’t intervene in African conflicts
Docking, 7 (Tim Docking, African Affairs Specialist with the United States Institute of Peace,
2007, Taking Sides Clashing Views on African Issues, p. 376)
Since the tragedy in Somalia, the trend has been for Western nations to refuse to send troops into
Africa's hot spots. Jordan recently underscored this point when it expressed frustration with the West's failure to commit soldiers to
the UNAMSIL mission as a reason for the withdrawal of its troops from Sierra Leone. America's aversion to peacekeeping in Africa also
reflects broader U.S. foreign policy on the continent. Africa
occupies a marginal role in American foreign
policy in general (a point highlighted by conference participants).
Impact Defense---Hotspots---A2: Central Asia
No Central Asia impact
Collins and Wohlforth, 4 (Kathleen A. Collins and William C. Wohlforth 03-04, Assistant
Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Associate Professor of
Government at Dartmouth College,“"Central Asia: Defying 'Great Game' Expectations"”
Strategic Asia)
The popular great game lens for analyzing Central Asia fails to capture the declared interests of the great powers
as well as the best reading of their objective interests in security and economic growth. Perhaps more importantly, it fails to explain their
actual behavior on the ground, as well the specific reactions of the Central Asian states themselves. Naturally, there are
competitive elements in great power relations. Each country’s policymaking community has slightly different preferences for tackling the
challenges presented in the region, and the more influence they have the more able they are to shape events in concordance with those
preferences. But these clashing
preferences concern the means to serve ends that all the great powers
share. To be sure, policy-makers in each capital would prefer that their own national firms or their own
government’s budget be the beneficiaries of any economic rents that emerge from the exploitation and transshipment of the
region’s natural resources. But the scale of these rents is marginal even for Russia’s oil-fueled budget. And
for taxable profits to be created, the projects must make sense economically—something that is determined more by
markets and firms than governments. Does it matter? The great game is an arresting metaphor that serves to draw people’s
attention to an oft-neglected region. The problem is that the great-game lens can distort realities on the
ground, and therefore bias analysis and policy. For when great powers are locked in a competitive fight, the issues at hand
matter less than their implication for the relative power of contending states. Power itself becomes the issue—one that tends to be nonnegotiable.
Viewing an essential positive-sum relationship through zero sum conceptual lenses will result in
missed opportunities for cooperation that leaves all players—not least the people who live in the region—poorer and more insecure.
While cautious realism must remain the watchword concerning an impoverished and potentially unstable region comprised of fragile and
authoritarian states,
our analysis yields at least conditional and relative optimism. Given the confluence of their
chief strategic interests, the major powers are in a better position to serve as a stabilizing force
than analogies to the Great Game or the Cold War would suggest. It is important to stress that the
region’s response to the profoundly destabilizing shock of coordinated terror attacks was
increased cooperation between local governments and China and Russia, and—multipolar rhetoric
notwithstanding—between both of them and the United States. If this trend is nurtured and if the initial signals about potential SCOCSTO-NATO cooperation are pursued, another destabilizing shock might generate more rather than less
cooperation among the major powers. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan are clearly on a trajectory that
portends longer-term cooperation with each of the great powers. As military and economic security interests become more entwined, there are
sound reasons to conclude that
“great game” politics will not shape Central Asia’s future in the same
competitive and destabilizing way as they have controlled its past. To the contrary, mutual interests in Central
Asia may reinforce the broader positive developments in the great powers’ relations that have taken place since September 11, as well as
reinforce regional and domestic stability in Central Asia.
No great powers would get drawn into a conflict
Weitz 6 (Richard, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Future Security Strategies at
Hudson Institute, Washington Quarterly 29.3, Muse)
Central Asian security affairs have become much more complex than during the original nineteenth-century great game between czarist Russia and the United Kingdom. At that time, these
two governments could largely dominate local affairs, but today a variety of influential actors are involved in the region. The early 1990s witnessed a vigorous competition between Turkey
and Iran for influence in Central Asia. More recently, India and Pakistan have pursued a mixture of cooperative and competitive policies in the region that have influenced and been
The now independent Central Asian countries also invariably affect the region's
international relations as they seek to maneuver among the major powers without
compromising their newfound autonomy. Although Russia, [End Page 155] China, and the United States substantially affect
regional security issues, they cannot dictate outcomes the way imperial governments frequently did a century ago. Concerns about a
affected by their broader relationship.
renewed great game are thus exaggerated. The contest for influence in the region does not directly
challenge the vital national interests of China, Russia, or the U nited S tates, the most important
extraregional countries in Central Asian security affairs. Unless restrained, however, competitive pressures risk impeding opportunities for
beneficial cooperation among these countries. The
three external great powers have incentives to compete for
local allies, energy resources, and military advantage, but they also share substantial interests,
especially in reducing terrorism and drug trafficking. If properly aligned, the major multilateral security
organizations active in Central Asia could provide opportunities for cooperative diplomacy in a region where bilateral ties traditionally have
predominated.
Impact Defense---Hotspots---A2: East Asia
No war
Shuo 12 (Wang Shuo, managing editor of Caixin Media: the top English-language magazine
covering business and finance in China, 9/12, "Closer Look: Why War Is Not an Option",
english.caixin.com/2012-09-12/100436770.html)
It is highly unlikely that China will fight a hot war with any of its neighbors over territorial disputes, but it
should still reexamine who its friends really are There won't be a war in East Asia. The U nited S tates has five
military alliances in the western Pacific: with South Korea, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore, and
American battleships are busy patrolling the seas. Without a go-ahead from Washington, there is no
possibility of a hot war between battleships of sovereign countries here. As to conflicts between fishing boats and
patrol boats, that's not really a big deal. The Chinese have to ponder several questions: If the country has battleship wars with
Japan, can it win without using ground-based missiles? Will the war escalate if missiles are deployed? What will happen if the war continues with
no victory in sight? In the last few days, one country bought islands, and the other announced the base points and the baselines of its territorial
waters. But look closely, China and Japan have at least two things in common in this hostile exchange: At
home they fan up nationalism, and in the international arena no activities have exceeded the scope of previous, respective claims on sovereignty.
there is no possibility of a war in East Asia, not even remotely. From the East Sea to the South
Sea, China has reached a new low in relations with Asian neighbors. It's hard to remove the
flashpoints in territorial disputes, but the country can surely reduce their impacts. And the key is relations
This means
with the United States.
Impact Defense---Hotspots---Ext---No Impact
No terminal impact to low readiness – empirics prove
Huffington Post 8 (Mar 8, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/01/senior-army-officialsus_n_94571.html)
Senior Army
and Marine Corps leaders said yesterday that the increase of more than 30,000 troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan has put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has
put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years. In a stark assessment a week before
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is to testify on the war's progress, Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief
of staff, said that the heavy deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families
and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military.
Impact empirically denied by three years of readiness shortfalls
AP 9 (Feb 20, http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/022009/nat_395947018.shtml)
For the third consecutive year, a classified Pentagon assessment has concluded there's a
significant risk that the U.S. military could not respond quickly and fully to any new crisis,
Associated Press has learned. The latest risk assessment, drawn up by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comes
despite recent security gains in Iraq and plans for troop cuts there. The
assessment finds that the U.S. continues to
face persistent terrorist threats and the military is still stretched and strained from long and
repeated tours to the war front. Senior military officials spoke about the report on condition of anonymity because it is a classified document. Prepared every
year and routinely delivered to Congress with the budget, the risk assessment paints a broad picture of security threats and hot spots around the world and the U.S. military's ability to deal
with them. Adm. Mullen has delivered it to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Because the threat is rated as significant, Mr. Gates will send an accompanying report to Congress outlining
This year's assessment finds many of the same
global security issues as in previous years - ranging from terrorist organizations and unstable
governments to the potential for high-tech cyberattacks. It also reflects the Pentagon's ongoing struggle to
what the military is doing to address the risks. That report has not yet been finished.
maintain a military that can respond to threats from other countries while honing newer counterinsurgency techniques to battle more
unconventional dangers such as suicide bombers and lethal roadside bombs. Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a
military-policy research group in Arlington, said the
assessment would take into account the strains on the
force, the wear and tear on aircraft and other military equipment, and a host of global
flashpoints. "This is a chairman who looks around the world and sees - right now, today - immediate, near-term problems like North
Korea; the larger questions of Pakistan and its future; Iran and what is going on there; Russia and Georgia; Venezuela, which has a close
relationship with Russia and is buying arms all over the place; and Cuba," Mr. Goure said. While
officials are preparing to
reduce troop levels in Iraq, they are increasing forces in Afghanistan - giving troops little
break from their battlefield tours. The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed ongoing efforts to increase the size of the Army and
Marine Corps, but that growth is only now starting to have an impact.
Status Quo Solves
Status quo solves – Embassies already approved, ambassador not key and future
Senates can approve DeLaurentis
Crabtree 7/2 {Susan, syndicated politics correspondent for The Hill/Congressional
Quarterly/Roll Call, B.S. in broadcast journalism (University of Southern California), “Obama
ready to fight over U.S. ambassador to Cuba,” The Washington Examiner, 2015,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-ready-to-fight-over-u.s.-ambassador-tocuba/article/2567500#THUR}
Juan Carlos Hidalgo,
a policy analyst on the Western Hemisphere at the Cato Institute, said the budget for the U.S.
mission in Havana, known as the U.S. Interests Section, has already been approved through 2017 so opening an official
embassy there is as simple as changing the signage on the building. Likewise, he said, the current
head of the mission, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, a 24-year veteran of the Foreign Service, has been in Havana since August 2014
and could simply remain in an acting position with no impact on his role there. "I don't think
we will have an official ambassador to Cuba anytime soon," he said, but that doesn't really
hurt the embassy's ability to function. DeLaurentis will have all the capabilities of an acting
ambassador even if he has to wait for the title until Republicans lose the majority in the
Senate, Hidalgo said.