[File Name]
1/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Case Updates
1/29
[File Name]
2/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Famine Advantage
2/29
[File Name]
3/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
1AC Famine Advantage
Cuba is facing massive famine
Cruz ’13—Journalist for Babalu, a news source focusing specifically on Cuba(De La Cruz, Alberto. "The Two Islands of Cuba: Splendor for the
Elite, Starvation for Everyone Else | Babalú Blog." Babal Blog RSS. N.p., 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://babalublog.com/2013/03/26/thetwo-island-of-cuba-splendor-for-the-elite-starvation-for-everyone-else/>.)
As photographer Michael Dweck documented in his book Habana Libre, the elite members of Cuba's ruling class enjoy a life of
splendor with bountiful meals, flowing champagne and cocktails, and decadent parties that can last for days. For
the rest of Cuba's people, however, poverty, misery, and starvation is all they have to look forward
to. A new video filmed inside of Cuba by the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) shows the long lines which form
throughout the island in order to “receive food”, which many times- as occurs in this videonever appears. As a result of this shortage, various women turn to the camera to protest. They are voices of hunger, desperation and
discontent.
Lifting the embargo solves
Zimmerman, fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, 2010
(Chelsea, “Rethinking the Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time to Mend a Broken Policy,” A Dialogue on
Presidential Challenges and Leadership: Papers of the 2009-2010 Center Fellows, Online:
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)
Trade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion annually by ¶ removing the trade
embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while ¶ also helping to alleviate
hunger among Cubans. A policy environment open to ¶ international trade and investment is a necessary ingredient to sustain higher rates ¶ of
economic growth and to promote political freedom through exposure to new ¶ technology, communications, and democratic ideas (Griswold, 1; Sachs and ¶ Warner).
Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is a means of lowering ¶ domestic prices and
increasing incomes of the poor, food availability and domestic ¶ production. U.S. companies will
introduce new technologies and production ¶ methods, while raising wages and labor standards
as a result of trading with Cuba. ¶ The additional creation of wealth will help to advance social,
political, and ¶ economic conditions independent of the governing authorities in Cuba. The most¶
economically open countries today are more than three times as likely to enjoy full ¶ political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed (Griswold, 1).
We have a moral obligation to provide food to all, even if that leads to extinction.
Watson 77, (Richard, Professor of Philosophy at Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, p. 118119)
These arguments are morally spurious. That food sufficient for well-nourished survival is the equal right of every human individual or nation is a
specification of the higher principle that everyone has equal right to the necessities of life. The moral stress of the principle of equity is primarily
on equal sharing, and only secondarily on what is being shared. The higher moral principle is of human equity per se. Consequently, the
moral
action is to distribute all food equally, whatever the consequences.
This is the hard line apparently drawn by such
moralists as Immanuel Kant and Noam Chomsky—but then, morality is hard. The conclusion may be unreasonable (impractical
and irrational in conventional terms), but it is obviously moral. Nor should anyone purport surprise; it has always been
understood that the claims of morality—if taken seriously—supersede those of conflicting reason. One may
even have to sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would
preserve it. For example, if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration
will hurt no one, he remains silent. Similarly, if one is to be moral, one distributes available food in equal shares (even if
everyone then dies). That an action is necessary to save one’s life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to
be a patriot or moral. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation. There is a strict analogy here
between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian. The moral
world contains pits and lions, but one looks always to the highest light. The ultimate test always harks to the highest principle—recant or die—and
it is pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough . I have put aside many questions of detail—such
as the mechanical problems of distributing food—because detail does not alter the stark conclusion. If every human life is equal in value, then the equal distribution of the necessities of life
is an extremely high, if not the highest, moral duty. It is at least high enough to override the excuse that by doing it one would lose one’s life. But many people cannot accept the view that
one must distribute equally even in f the nation collapses or all people die. If everyone dies, then there will be no realm of morality. Practically speaking, sheer survival comes first. One can
3/29
[File Name]
4/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
adhere to the principle of equity only if one exists. So it is rational to suppose that the principle of survival is morally higher than the principle of equity. And though one might not be able
to argue for unequal distribution of food to save a nation—for nations can come and go—one might well argue that unequal distribution is necessary for the survival of the human species.
That is, some large group—say one-third of present world population—should be at least well-nourished for human survival. However, from an
individual
standpoint, the human species—like the nation—is of no moral relevance. From a naturalistic standpoint,
survival does come first; from a moralistic standpoint—as indicated above—survival may have to be sacrificed.
In the milieu of morality, it is immaterial whether or not the human species survives as a result of
individual behavior.
4/29
[File Name]
5/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
US Influence/Relations Advantage
5/29
[File Name]
6/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
UQ – US Losing Influence Now – Cuba Key
U.S. losing influence in the western hemisphere – disagreements over Cuba kill our credibility
Parsons 12 (4/25, Renee, Fmr. lobbyist for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C. focusing on nuclear energy issues, Huff Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/us-hegemony-in-latin-amer_b_1445244.html)
While the 'misconduct' of Secret Service agents with prostitutes in Colombia is a significant, if titillating scandal, most media reports have missed the
tectonic political shift that surfaced at the recent Summit of the Americas meeting.¶ The
Summit, an offshoot of the
Organization of American States organized in 1948, consists of 35 western hemisphere
nations that meet on a tri-annual basis with the U.S. historically setting the agenda since
the summit's inception in 1994.¶ The president arrived, smooth and impeccable, with, no doubt, the expectation of encouraging
new investment and trade initiatives at the first business seminar conducted since the Summits began. Attending were over three hundred U.S. business
executives with Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue in attendance to push for a free trade deal with Brazil. Once
China began
out-hustling the U.S. for its share of the global pie in Latin America and as the U.S. bogged down in a
decade of war with an enduring economic catastrophe on its hands, Summit countries
took the opportunity to readjust their vision of Uncle Sam's once omnipotent authority. That
readjusted vision has offered a measure of independence from U.S. trade markets as well
as U.S. domination on policy decisions. While not known for its historical memory, the U.S. does not usually react kindly to
previously compliant nations flexing their sovereign muscles, U.S. AID to Latin American and the Caribbean at $1.3 billion in 2010 will most likely provide
the necessary tether for continued cooperation.¶ Out of left field, the president's usual razzle dazzle charm offensive so successful at his first summit in
2009 ran into a brick wall amid deep contentious divisions that had been brewing since the previous summit. In
what may be karmic
payback for one hundred and fifty years of U.S. policy imposed on Latin America, 32
nations supported a resolution that Cuba be allowed to attend the 2015 summit with only
the U.S. and the reliable Canadians voting against. Cuba had been expelled from the OAS
in 1962 with the beginning of 50 years of economic sanctions and was readmitted in 2009
but not invited to the summit.¶ In an amiable display of hubris, the president dug in his heels insisting
that Cuba cannot attend since it has "not yet moved to democracy" and is still a "single party state"
meaning no adversarial political parties. As Obama spoke of democracy, the irony of the U.S. undermining
democratically elected Latin American heads of state and now requiring democracy as a
condition for membership must have been subject for some sarcasm among current
summit leaders. A summit rule adopted in 2001 required each participant to respect the rule of law as a 'democratic' country although Mexico,
which had been a regular Summit participant since 1994, achieved real democracy only in 2000. How well each participant respects the rule of law and
encourages robust political partisan debate may rest in the eye of the beholder.¶ It
is curious that American leaders expect
its citizens and other nations to not connect the dots when it comes to its own double
standards. It would be educational to know how the U.S. would justify applying the summit's democracy rule to China, our third largest trading
partner, or to Saudi Arabia, our favorite importer of petroleum, neither known as guiding lights for justice or equality. If the democratic
standard is that a majority vote carries the day and since an overwhelming majority of
summit nations adopted the Cuban resolution, how is democracy served when a minority
of two have the power to challenge that resolution's implementation and how is it that
one nation gets to decide who is invited? Therein lies the problem for U.S. foreign policy
around the world -- that other nations and its people are capable of 'seeing' beyond the
pretense.¶ As a backdrop for atmosphere at the summit, the experience of Bolivia is informative. In 2008, the Bush Administration suspended 'trade
preferences' including duty free status for Bolivia alleging an insufficient effort to stop drug trafficking. The move came less than a month after Bolivian
President Evo Morales accused the U.S. Ambassador of fomenting violence and upheaval with right wing opposition groups. In expelling the envoy,
Morales accused the U.S. of an attack on a gas pipeline and initiating an assassination conspiracy. With the election of Barack Obama, diplomatic relations
between the two countries were set back when the Bush suspension was made permanent, costing Bolivia 20,000 non-drug industry related jobs and $278
million in exports. The coca leaf is legal in Bolivia as a tea and for religious and cultural purposes.¶ If the discussion on Cuba was not a forewarning of a
challenge to its authority, the U.S. response to decriminalizing drugs must have been especially irksome to nation who has lived with years of massive
violence and corruption from the drug cartels. Fareed Zakaria reported Sunday on CNN that Mexico had suffered an unbelievable 50,000 drug related
deaths in the last six years. ¶ While U.S. strategy at the Summit may be viewed as a metaphor for American pursuit of obsolete Cold War objectives around
the world, the president offered little more than platitudes and some confusion with his categorical statement that "For the sake of the health and safety
of our citizens -- all our citizens -- the United States will not be going in this direction."¶ It remains a puzzle as to why Obama, greeted as a rock star at the
2009 summit, left no room for negotiation on an issue that isolates the U.S. from many of its south-of-the-border allies and causes great anguish for
millions of American families. With over two million incarcerated and another five million on probation, the U.S. can claim to have the most citizens in jail
for drug-related offenses than any other country in the world.¶ Latin American leaders have raised the issue with the U.S. in the past when the former
presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for decriminalization of marijuana in 2009. The U.S. drug policy, which has spent $25 billion on ineffectual
crop eradication and border interdiction efforts as it has encouraged a militarization of the failed war on drugs, the president's 'new environment of
6/29
[File Name]
7/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
cooperation' hit a serious ditch in the road as the U.S. and Canada objected to a consensus document preferring the 'reduce-demand' theory reminiscent
of Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign.¶ In
what has been deemed a setback for the U.S., the sixth
Summit of the Americas faltered to an unhappy conclusion for all participants with
President Morales and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff predicting no future summits
without Cuba.¶ The president seriously misread the mood in the hemisphere, especially in an awkward moment when he said "Sometimes I feel
as if... we're caught in a time warp, going back to the 1950s, gunboat diplomacy, and Yankees and the Cold War, and so forth, and not addressing the
world we live in." ¶ That was, Mr. President, exactly the problem at Cartagena. The
Summit wants to move forward into
the 21st Century but it is the United States that clings to the past as it resists the will of
the majority.
7/29
[File Name]
8/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Impact – Democracy/Trade
U.S. influence in Latin America key to democratization and trade
Nicholas 11 (Peter, 3/22, LA Times “Latin America increasingly important to the U.S., Obama says” http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/22/world/la-fgobama-chile-20110322)
Reporting from Santiago, Chile — President Obama said Monday that the United States has sometimes taken Latin America for granted, but that he sees
the region as an increasingly important player on the world stage.¶ Obama, in Chile at the midpoint of a five-day, three-country Latin American trip, sought
to dispel views of the U.S. as an overbearing neighbor dictating terms to countries in the region. He
called Latin America "a region
on the move, proud of its progress, and ready to assume a greater role in world affairs,"
and he described the U.S. economy as deeply entwined with that of Latin America.¶ "Latin
America is only going to become more important to the United States, especially to our
economy," the president said after a meeting and news conference with Chilean President Sebastian Piñera. "Trade between the
United States and Latin America has surged. We buy more of your goods and products than any other country, and we
invest more in this region than any other country…. In other words, when Latin America is more prosperous, the United States is more prosperous.¶
"With no other region does the United States have so many connections. And nowhere do we see that
more than in the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans across the United States, who enrich our society, grow our economy and strengthen our nation
every single day," he said.¶ Obama
laid out a vision for the Latin American-U.S. relationship that was
rooted in a shared belief in democracy, stronger cultural ties and expanded trade.¶ Obama's
first trip to South America has unfolded in the shadow of the military conflict in Libya. Still, White House aides said his comments Monday, which included
a speech at La Moneda Palace Cultural Center, a modern art museum near the presidential palace, were important in recasting America's relationship with
its southern neighbors.¶ Fifty years ago John F. Kennedy launched his Alliance for Progress, pumping billions of dollars into the Latin American economy.
Today, struggling with huge deficits at home, an American president is no longer in a
position to lavish aid on the region and so must rethink the way north and south
cooperate in the new era, aides said.¶ But the history between Chile and the U.S. has had its painful moments. At the news conference, a
Chilean reporter asked Obama about "open wounds" stemming from the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Thousands of people were killed, kidnapped or
tortured under Pinochet's rule, from 1973 to 1990.¶ Referring to allegations that the United States played a role in Pinochet's 1973 coup, the reporter said
that "many of those wounds have to do with the U.S." He asked if Obama would pledge U.S. assistance in investigating that part of Chile's past.¶ Obama
said the U.S. would "like to cooperate" with requests for information about involvement.¶ "Obviously," Obama said, "the history of relations between the
United States and Latin America have at times been extremely rocky and have at times been difficult. I think it's important, though, for us, even as we
understand our history and gain clarity about our history, that we're not trapped by our history. ¶ "And the fact of the matter is, is that over the last two
decades we've seen extraordinary progress here in Chile, and that has not been impeded by the United States but, in fact, has been fully supported by the
United States."
8/29
[File Name]
9/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Impact – Stability
Multipolarity results in great power rivalry, world wars prove – hegemony more stable
Varisco 13 (Andrea Edoardo, writer for e-International Relations, “Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?”
http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-which-prospects-for-global-peace/)
History has indeed already shown how multi-polarity is more unstable and war-prone
than bipolarity or unipolarity. The modern history of Europe for example has been characterized by many multi-polar moments.¶ At
the beginning of the 17th century, the multi-polar European order was swept away by the Thirty Years War, a conflict that lasted from 1618 to 1648 and
was triggered by religious, territorial and dynastic disputes over the internal politics and balance of power among various Christian groups and
principalities. The conflict involved the Holy Roman Empire of the Hapsburgs, German Protestant princes, the foreign powers of France, Sweden, Denmark,
England and the United Provinces and was ended by the Peace of Westphalia, which introduced the concept of state sovereignty and gave rise to the
modern international system of states. This system of states was challenged by the expansion of the Napoleonic Empire at the beginning of the 19th
century. After the defeat of the Emperor, in 1815 the great powers held the Congress of Vienna to re-establish the previous state order and formulated
the Concert of Europe as a mechanism to enforce their decisions.¶ The Concert of Europe was composed by the Quadruple Alliance of Russia, Prussia,
Austria and Great Britain and was aimed to achieve a balance of power in Europe, preserving the territorial status quo, protecting legitimate governments
and containing France after decades of war. The Concert of Europe was one of the few historical examples of stable multi-polarity: the regular meetings of
the great powers assured decades of peace and stability in the continent. The Concert of Europe suppressed uprisings for constitutional governments in
Italy and Spain, secured the independence of Greece and Belgium but did not prevent the Crimean War in 1853 and a return to great power rivalry.¶
During the 20th century multi-polar international systems resulted in instability and led
to two world wars in less than 50 years. The balance of power and the system of alliances of the early 20th century was swept
away by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. That event triggered World War I, a global conflict that caused the death of more than 15
million people in less than five years. After few decades, the
multi-polar world emerged by World War I with a new system of alliances and
the multilateral body of the League of Nations was not able to tame the totalitarian aspirations of Hitler. The
German invasion of Poland in 1939 triggered World War II, the deadliest conflict of the history which resulted in millions of deaths and in the holocaust.
Since the end of the World War II the world has never been multi-polar again, nevertheless these historical accounts seem to indicate how multi-
polarity often created an unstable and unpredictable world, characterized by shifting
alliances and by the aspiration of the rising powers to change the balance of power and
create a new order.¶ These historical features of multi-polarity will likely distinguish also
the future multi-polar world, in spite of its strong economic interconnection and
institutionalization. History indeed has also shown how the effects on stability of a global
economy and of multilateral institutions have been sometimes overestimated. The multipolar world at the beginning of the 20th century was highly economically interconnected
and characterized by a large cross-border flows of goods, capital and people, at the point that the
ratio of trade to output indicates that “Britain and France are only slightly more open to trade today than they were in 1913, while Japan is less open now
than then” (The Economist, 99; Van den Bossche, 4). Nevertheless, this high interconnection was swept away by World War I. Furthermore, the presence
of the League of Nations did not prevent World War II; likewise, the multilateral organization of the UN has not always been effective in promoting peace
and security, and membership in the European Union did not prevent European countries from having different positions and antithetic behaviors in the
wake of US war in Iraq in 2003. A
shifting from a well defined hierarchy of power to a great power
rivalry will therefore result in a less stable world order.
9/29
[File Name]
10/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: Soft Power Fails
Latin America multipolarity can be successful
NACLA No Date (North American Congress on Latin America, “Introduction: The Multipolar Moment?” https://nacla.org/article/introduction-multipolarmoment)
Picture it: two flags, one Chinese, the other Cuban, flying on an oil rig just a few dozen miles off the U.S. coast. The January 2005 deal between Chinese
state company Sinopec and its Cuban counterpart to explore for oil in the Gulf of Mexico is but one of many examples of new a “multipolar” trend in the
hemisphere, indeed in the world. Although
Cuba, because of the embargo, has pursued international
partnerships for more than a decade, more nations in the hemisphere are following the
same strategy. In an effort to cast off dependence on the United States, contain its power,
and pursue economic development outside the Washington Consensus, they are joining
with partners elsewhere in the Global South.¶ No less than Charles Krauthammer—author of the
influential 1990 article “The Unipolar Moment,” in which the neoconservative columnist hailed the post-Soviet era as one in which the
United States alone would reign supreme—has declared unipolarity finished. With this announcement, Krauthammer did not
have Latin American oil contracts in mind, but rather the “anti-hegemonic alliance” in the Middle East being constructed by an Iran supposedly fixated on
acquiring nuclear weapons. Whatever these claims, the definition of international “polarity” at work here rests on the balance of military might—on hard
power.¶ As the essays in this Report bear out, Latin
America’s approach to building a new multipolar world
order is decidedly in the soft power arena, even in its most militant version—Venezuelan president
Hugo Chávez’s oil diplomacy. Venezuela’s strategy centers on diversifying its oil partners among Southern state companies, which are generally happy to
transfer their technology, unlike their private-sector counterparts. The strategy also concentrates on building international solidarity through cooperation
agreements with partners in various regions.¶ In its symbols and rhetoric, chavista internationalism recalls the Third World project analyzed herein by Vijay
Prashad. Despite differences between Latin America’s history of colonialism and imperialism and those of Africa and Asia, the region played a critical role
in supporting decolonization, from the signing of the UN Charter to the Non-Aligned Movement, and including the remarkable history of Cuban
internationalism.¶ The far less provocative diplomacy of Brazil, compared to Venezuela’s, follows less in the spirit of Bandung and more in that of 1970s
South-South cooperation efforts. Building coalitions in institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), Brazil seeks to constrain the North through
international commitments to unify opposition to the Washington Consensus among undeveloped countries. To this end, Brazil spearheaded an alliance
with India and South Africa to form the IBSA Dialogue Forum. This trilateral core, together with China, then served as a “coalition magnet” within the WTO,
contributing to, among other things, the successful coordination of positions on agricultural subsidies at the 2003 WTO ministerial. But they remain rule
“conditioners,” not makers.¶ Brazil’s assertive foreign policy in some ways parallels China’s. Its massive domestic market and booming output
notwithstanding, China has in recent years postured itself as a fellow developing country, deepening and intensifying links with Latin America. Trade with
China has grown at least fivefold since 2000, and although the bulk of it seems to reproduce classic North-South asymmetries—with Latin America
exporting raw materials receiving finished goods in return—many governments believe China offers both an attractive alternative to the Washington
Consensus and an intriguing development model.¶ Successfully
building effective coalitions and mutually
beneficial trade, linking with extrahemispheric partners and presenting a coordinated
position in global forums—these policy options were largely unavailable to Latin America
even just recently. Although these developments certainly do not signify the end of U.S. dominance, their momentum has been established.
According to Aijaz Ahmad in this issue’s Anniversary Interview, Krauthammer’s “unipolar moment” was, for the left, the beginning of a “phase of
experimentation with various forms of struggle, combining some older forms with newer ones.”¶ “These innovations,” he says, “might
eventually show us the way to historically unprecedented forms that are appropriate for
revolutions of the 21st century.”
10/29
[File Name]
11/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Prolif Updates – A2 Prolif Good
11/29
[File Name]
12/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: Prolif Good – Solves War/Deterrence
Cold war deterrence no longer applies—Proliferation will cause nuclear war
Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, 2009
(Henry, “Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd,” Policy Review, June & July, Online: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)
At a minimum,
such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed during the Cold
War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or another of the two superpowers’ strong alliance systems — the U.S.-led free world
and the Russian-Chinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small, nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and system, however, no
longer exist. Instead, we now have one superpower, the United States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone,
associated with a relatively weak alliance system ( nato) that includes two European nuclear powers (France and the uk). nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear
targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia (Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence of an increasing number of
nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with independent nuclear powers by making them “strategic partners” (e.g.,
India and Russia), nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), “non-nato allies” (e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation
actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran or North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this world, every
nuclear power center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relations or ties
with one another but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being as important as the ties between Washington and each of
There are limits, however, to what this approach can accomplish. Such a weak alliance
system, with its expanding set of loose affiliations, risks becoming analogous to the international system that failed to
contain offensive actions prior to World War I. Unlike 1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces
anywhere on the globe. But in a world with an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready
states, this may not matter as much as we think. In such a world, the actions of just one or two
states or groups that might threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state could
check U.S. influence or ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing. No amount of
military science or tactics could assure that the U.S. could disarm or neutralize such
threatening or unstable nuclear states.22 Nor could diplomats or our intelligence services be relied upon to keep up to date on what
each of these governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted above and one
could easily create the perfect nuclear storm: Small differences between nuclear competitors
that would put all actors on edge; an overhang of nuclear materials that could be called upon to
break out or significantly ramp up existing nuclear deployments; and a variety of potential new nuclear actors
developing weapons options in the wings. In such a setting, the military and nuclear rivalries between states
could easily be much more intense than before. Certainly each nuclear state’s military would
place an even higher premium than before on being able to weaponize its military and civilian
surpluses quickly, to deploy forces that are survivable, and to have forces that can get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of probability.
The advanced military states will also be even more inclined to develop and deploy enhanced air and missile defenses and long-range, precision guidance munitions,
and to develop a variety of preventative and preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a
world, relations between states could become far less stable. Relatively small developments —
these nuclear-armed entities (see Figure 3).
e.g., Russian support for sympathetic near-abroad provinces; Pakistani-inspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently in Mumbai; new Indian
flanking activities in Iran near Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts of key figures in the
Middle East or South West Asia, etc. — could
easily prompt nuclear weapons deployments with “strategic”
consequences (arms races, strategic miscues, and even nuclear war). As Herman Kahn once
noted, in such a world “every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite
different from what is possible today.”23 In short, we may soon see a future that neither the proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their
critics, would ever want.
12/29
[File Name]
13/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: Prolif Good – Bioweapons
Bioweapons are a joke—Empirics prove no impact
Easterbrook, Senior Fellow @ the New Republic, 2003
(Gregg, “We’re All Gonna Die!,” Wired, July, Online:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=2&topic=&topic_set=)
Like chemical agents, biological weapons have never lived up to their billing in popular culture. Consider the
1995 medical thriller Outbreak, in which a highly contagious virus takes out entire towns. The reality is quite different. Weaponized smallpox
escaped from a Soviet laboratory in Aralsk, Kazakhstan, in 1971; three people died, no epidemic
followed. In 1979, weapons-grade anthrax got out of a Soviet facility in Sverdlovsk (now called
Ekaterinburg); 68 died, no epidemic. The loss of life was tragic, but no greater than could have been caused by a single conventional
bomb. In 1989, workers at a US government facility near Washington were accidentally exposed to
Ebola virus. They walked around the community and hung out with family and friends for
several days before the mistake was discovered. No one died. The fact is, evolution has spent
millions of years conditioning mammals to resist germs. Consider the Black Plague. It was the
worst known pathogen in history, loose in a Middle Ages society of poor public health, awful sanitation, and no antibiotics. Yet it
didn’t kill off humanity. Most people who were caught in the epidemic survived. Any superbug
introduced into today’s Western world would encounter top-notch public health, excellent
sanitation, and an array of medicines specifically engineered to kill bioagents. Perhaps one day some
aspiring Dr. Evil will invent a bug that bypasses the immune system. Because it is possible some novel superdisease could be invented, or that existing pathogens like
smallpox could be genetically altered to make them more virulent (two-thirds of those who contract natural smallpox survive), biological agents are a legitimate
concern. They may turn increasingly troublesome as time passes and knowledge of biotechnology becomes harder to control, allowing individuals or small groups to
cook up nasty germs as readily as they can buy guns today. But no
superplague has ever come close to wiping out
humanity before, and it seems unlikely to happen in the future.
Nuclear war causes extinction—Climate disruptions, famine, and radiation
Starr ’08 (Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, USASGR Newsletter. “High-alert nuclear weapons:the forgotten
danger”. August 2008. http://www.sgr.org.uk/newsletters/NL36_lead.pdf
Ironically, the US and Russia--‘No First Use’ pledge for their nuclear weapons)
The consequences of a war involving high-alert nuclear weapons General knowledge of nuclear weapon effects is also sadly lacking. Most people
have no idea that the detonation of a single average strategic nuclear weapon will ignite a gigantic firestorm over a total area of 105 to 170
square kilometres.34Even fewer people are aware of the predicted environmental and ecological consequences of nuclear conflict. As discussed
in the previous SGR Newsletter,35 recent research using NASA climate models forecasts that even a ‘regional’
nuclear war, using 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons, would result in catastrophic
disruptions of the global climate.36 Burning cities would produce about five million of tons of smoke that would rise above
cloud level to form a global stratospheric smoke layer. This would block sunlight, leading to rapid drops in global surface
temperature and significant reductions in global precipitation. Furthermore, research published in April 2008
indicated that smoke from this regional conflict would also destroy 25-40% of the protective ozone layer over the populated mid-latitudes,
and 50-70% of the ozone over the more northerly latitudes.37 Such reductions would enormously increase the amount of ultraviolet light
reaching the surface and have serious consequences for humans and many other forms of life. The levels of ozone destruction predicted by this
new study had previously only been expected to happen after a full-scale nuclear war.38 Unfortunately, no new studies have been carried out
using a modern climate model that could estimate the amount of ozone that would be destroyed by a major nuclear conflict, but it seems
reasonable to expect that it could be significantly larger. In 2007, US scientists predicted that a nuclear war fought with about
one-third of the global nuclear arsenal39 would cause 50 million tons of smoke to reach the
stratosphere – about ten times that of a regional war. The resulting ‘nuclear darkness’ would cause average
global surface temperatures to become as cold as those experienced 18,000 years ago during the
coldest period of the last ice age40 – see Figure 1. The US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals on high alert
contain a total explosive power of nearly 1,200 MT, with the total explosive power of the operational, deployed
nuclear arsenals of both countries being nearly 2,700 MT (see Table 3). Based on the new climate studies, a nuclear war between
these two nations, which began with the detonation of their high-alert, launch-ready nuclear arsenals, and
went on to include about another 20% of their deployed nuclear arsenals, would – at minimum – result in the extreme
level of climate change shown in Figure 1. Computer models predict that 40% of the smoke would still remain in the stratosphere
13/29
[File Name]
14/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
10 years after the nuclear war, causing a long-term nuclear darkness. The subsequent cooling of the Earth’s surface would weaken the global
hydrological cycle and lead to significant decreases in average global precipitation.42Growing seasons would be drastically
shortened throughout the world, particularly in the large agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Under such circumstances,
most people on Earth would starve.43 In addition to the catastrophic effects on the climate and ozone layer, a nuclear
war would release enormous amounts of radioactive fallout, pyrotoxins and toxic industrial chemicals into
the environment. Taken together, these would be a clear threat to the continued survival of
humans and other complex forms of life. The scientists who carried out the research on the climatic consequences of
nuclear war state that a nuclear first-strike would be suicidal, and have called for a new global nuclear environmental treaty.
14/29
[File Name]
15/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Democracy Add-on
15/29
[File Name]
16/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Cuban Democracy Good
Cuban Democracy spreads through Latin America –democratic domino affect
Peter T. Leeson George Mason University graduate student and Andrea M. Dean No date West Virginia University graduate student
“The
Democratic Domino Theory: An Empirical Investigation” http://peterleeson.homestead.com/Democratic_Domino_Theory.pdf
Although the particular political-economic features¶ of concern vary across renditions of the domino theory,¶ the basic
logic underlying domino-style reasoning is the¶ same in each case. In this model, changes in one country’s¶
political institutions spread to neighboring countries, affecting these countries’ political institutions
similarly,¶ which spreads to their neighbors, and so on. According¶ to the democratic domino theory, for
instance, increases¶ in one nation’s democracy lead to increases in its neighbors’ democracy,
leading to increases in their neighbors’¶ democracy, and so on. The result is greater democracy¶
in the region and world. On the other hand, decreases in¶ democracy in one country may also “infect”
neighboring¶ nations, reducing their democracy, which spreads to their¶ neighbors, deteriorating global democracy.
Empirically Democracy solves war in Latin America and abroad
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security
March 1998 “"Why the United States Should Spread Democracy"
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html
First, there are reasons to doubt the strength of the relationship between democratization and war. Other quantitative
studies challenge the statistical significance of Mansfield and Snyder''s results, suggest that there is an even stronger
connection between movements toward autocracy and the onset of war, find that it is actually
unstable transitions and reversals of democratization that increase the probability of war, and argue
that democratization diminishes the likelihood of militarized international disputes.115 In
particular, autocracies are likely to exploit nationalism and manipulate public opinion to launch diversionary
wars-the same causal mechanisms that Mansfield and Snyder claim are at work in democratizing states. Mansfield and
Snyder themselves point out that "reversals of democratization are nearly as risky as democratization itself," thereby
bolstering the case for assisting the consolidation of new democracies.116 In addition, very few of
the most recent additions to the ranks of democracies have engaged in wars. In Central and Eastern
Europe, for example, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and
Slovenia have avoided major internal and external conflicts. Of these countries, only Slovenia was involved in brief series
of military skirmishes with Serbia.117 Russia has been involved in a number of small wars on or near its borders, but so
far it has undergone a dramatic transition toward democracy without becoming very warlike.118 There is little
evidence of international war in Latin America, which also has witnessed a large-scale
transition to democracy in recent years. Countries such as Mongolia and South Africa appear to have made the
transition to democracy without going to war. The new democracies plagued by the most violence,
including some former Soviet republics and the republics of the former Yugoslavia, are those that are the least
democratic and may not qualify as democracies at all.
16/29
[File Name]
17/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: Obesity Turn
17/29
[File Name]
18/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
2AC A2 Lifting Embargo = Obesity
Being underweight kills more people – their evidence doesn’t account for the positive effects of being overweight
Flegal et al, 2005
Katherine M. Flegal, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD; David F. Williamson, PhD; Mitchell H. Gail, MD, PhD
Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293:1861-1867. “Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight,
Overweight, and Obesity”
excess deaths greater than zero for the
underweight category, less than zero for the overweight category, and increasing at higher BMI levels.
Estimates based on relative risks from each of the 3 surveys showed a similar pattern, with
Although the prevalence of BMI 35 or greater is low (Table 3), that category accounted for the largest absolute number of estimated excess deaths in
2000, regardless of which survey served as the source of relative risks. The estimates of excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI 30) were
calculated from the distribution of BMI and other covariates in NHANES 1999-2002; however, these estimates vary according to the source of the
relative risk estimates. Excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI 30) were calculated as 298 808 according to the NHANES I relative risks, 26 917
according to the NHANES II relative risks, or 43 650 according to the NHANES III relative risks. In all 3 cases, however, the majority of
deaths associated with obesity were associated with BMI 35 and above: 186 498, 21 777, or 57 515 deaths,
respectively. (NHANES III relative risks produced a negative estimate for BMI 30 to <35.) For overweight (BMI 25 to <30), the data
consistently suggested no excess deaths overall: –14 354, –171 945, or –99 979 excess deaths according to the relative risks from
each of the 3 surveys. For underweight (BMI <18.5), the relative risks from all surveys suggested a slight increase in risk. The estimated excess deaths
associated with underweight were 41 930, 19 618, or 38 456. Using relative risks from the combined survey data, we estimated that 111 909 excess deaths
in 2000 (95% CI, 53 754 to 170 064) were associated with obesity (BMI 30) (Figure 2). Of the excess deaths associated with obesity, the majority
(82 066 deaths; 95% CI, 44 843 to 119 289) occurred in individuals with BMI 35 or greater. Overweight was associated with a slight
reduction in mortality (–86 094 deaths; 95% CI, –161 223 to –10 966) relative to the normal weight category. Thus, for overweight
and obesity combined (BMI 25), our estimate was 25 814 excess deaths (95% CI, –86 284 to 137 913) in 2000, arrived at
by adding the estimate for obesity to the estimate for overweight. Underweight was associated with 33 746 excess deaths (95%
CI, 15 726-51 766).
Countermeasures check - the entire population will never be overweight – fashion industry, social norms, desire to be
attractive, etc, prove that lots of people will stay fit. Increased public attention will lead to anti-obesity campaigns –
proven by status quo. Solved Smoking, will solve obesity
LALASZ 2008
(Robert, senior editor at Population Reference Bureau, “Will Rising Childhood Obesity Decrease U.S. Life Expectancy?”
www.prb.org/Articles/2005/WillRisingChildhoodObesityDecreaseUSLifeExpectancy.aspx?p=1)
Olshansky, Preston, and other demographers interviews for this article do agree on one thing: Obesity
is a serious and growing public-health issue that calls for a renewed public campaign. But Preston is
optimistic that behavioral changes can counter America's increasing waistlines.
"I think smoking as an addictive habit was probably harder to break than eating 30 or 100 calories a
day too many," says Preston. "The fact that we did break the back of the smoking addiction—and there
was a huge campaign to do so—indicates that if we undertook a similar campaign, it might be
similarly successful."
Olshansky says he's already undertaken such a campaign—in his own home. "One thing my
generation learned is to clean our plates, to override our body's internal mechanism that we're full,"
he says. "I'm acutely aware of that and am teaching myself and my children to stop eating when
they're full, and it's been remarkable. I've lost 20 to 25 pounds in the last year."
18/29
[File Name]
19/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Turn: Obesity is a sign of good health in the Caribbean
Sharma 2012 (Dr. Arya M. Sharma, MD/PhD, FRCPC is Professor of Medicine & Chair in Obesity Research and
Management at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/post-author/arya-msharma ) <^.^>
On the first day of the 1st Caribbean Obesity Forum, I presented various talks on obesity – its
economic implications, its assessment and the need for firmly anchoring obesity treatment in
primary care. Interestingly, several family doctors in the audience raised the interesting issue that
here on Barbados (as probably on other islands) many patients are actually quite happy with their
weights. One family physician noted in his presentation the case of an overweight woman, who
presented in his practice with diabetes. A few weeks after starting her on metformin, she came
back considerably distressed about the fact, that she had now lost a few kilos. He noted that despite
explaining out that her diabetes was now under control and her blood pressure had improved,
she remained unconvinced about the benefits of being on this treatment. To her, losing weight
equated directly with being unhealthy and “less sexy” to her husband. This topic came up several
times during the day, where the issue of how to address obesity related health problems in a culture,
where excess weight is considered both physically attractive and a sign of good health – never
mind that the Caribbean (as pointed out by other speakers) now has some of the highest diabetes
rates in world – I have heard Jamaica referred to as the world capital of foot amputations. The notion
of obesity as a sign of good health of course is not that surprising – especially in countries
where malnutrition, infectious diseases, gut parasites, and other ‘wasting’ conditions, are
endemic. Being skinny is a sure sign of sickness and weight loss is most alarming. One discussant
reminded me of the African practice of fattening rooms, where brides-to-be would be sequestered and
overfed in order to be their ‘best weight’ on their wedding day – the exact opposite of Western
societies, where brides wanting to lose weight provide healthy profits for the weight-loss industry.
Obviously, in such a setting, the very idea that excess weight may adversely affect pregnancy
outcomes, is clearly a hard sell – as noted by the colleague speaking on the issue of epigenetic
programming in utero.in the discussions, I did point out that while we certainly did not have an issue
with women not wanting to lose weight (in fact our challenge is perhaps the opposite – convincing
many women that the few extra pounds they would so desperately like to shave off their butts and
thighs may actually protect them from diabetes and other health problems), we do have a problem
with men trivialising or denying the problem. These learnings are nevertheless important to me,
especially when practicing in a country like Canada, where we see patients with a wide range of ethnic
and cultural backgrounds.As clinicians, let us be aware that when some of our patients appear
unconcerned about their weight-realated health problems, they may not simply be unmotivated to
consider obesity treatments – they (and their family and friends) may actively oppose and resist them.
19/29
[File Name]
20/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Off-Case Updates
20/29
[File Name]
21/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: CP
21/29
[File Name]
22/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: Maintain Restrictions CP – Lifting Whole Embargo Key
Lifting the whole embargo is key to cultural exchanges and diplomatic ties—spurs change
Huddleston, 08 (Vicki Huddleston, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Africa at the Department of Defense. She was a visiting fellow at Brookings and
co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition from 2007 to 2009; “Cuba Embargo's Usefulness Has Run Its Course”;
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/03/10-cuba-huddleston; March 10th, 2008) JM
No matter how much we may wish it to be otherwise, there is no denying the fact that Fidel
Castro and the Cuba Revolution have
survived and to some degree thrived, despite all our efforts to the contrary. If we had any doubt, it should have been
removed when Fidel handed over power to his hand-picked loyal successor -- his brother Raúl. Ironically, Fidel has done that which we
least expected -- turn over power to a successor while he is still alive. But by doing so, he has ensured a
peaceful transfer of power and his continuing influence within the regime's hierarchy. His legacy is
secure -- and he is still around to watch over it. Raúl's job at 76 is to prepare for a transition to one of the loyal elite, such as Vice President Carlos Lage, Foreign
Minister Felipe Roque, National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcón or even a lesser known such as the glamorous former head of the Cuban Interests Section in
Washington D.C., Fernando Ramírez Estenoz. If
all goes well, Raúl will establish his legitimacy by carrying out
modest reforms that put more food on the table, provide better housing and allow a bit more
personal freedom. Having waited so long for improved living conditions, Raúl may not have to
do very much to boost his dour image and popularity. But if the revolution at any time appears to be in jeopardy, the older,
harder, fighting men -- including First Vice President José Ramón Machado Ventura, Gen. Julio Casas Regueiro, who replaced Raúl as minister of defense, and Minister
of Interior Abelardo Colomé Ibarra -- will bring the full force of the institutions they command to ensure their own survival and that of the Cuban state.
There
can no longer be any doubt that our isolation of Cuba did not and cannot bring about the end of the revolution . What
will bring about the revolution's demise are old age, illness and death. More important, the revolution will evolve as it loses its
founding fathers and becomes increasingly less isolated from its neighbors though the Internet,
television, travelers and the flow of information. But how fast and how far the revolution evolves depends upon U.S. policy. If we
remove the barriers to communication, we will speed the forces of change. Just as was the case in Eastern
Europe as a result of the Helsinki agreements, the Cuban people will be empowered by human contact, the free flow
of information, and the support and encouragement of Americans and Cuban Americans from
Florida to California. If U.S. policy can deal with Cuba -- not as a domestic political issue -- but
as one sovereign state to another, then we will resume official diplomatic relations with the
exchange of ambassadors and begin -- once again -- to talk about matters that affect the well
being and security of both our countries, namely migration, anti-narcotics, health and the
environment. Starting a dialogue will allow us to press Cuba's leaders to respect the principles that we and the region hold dear: human rights, rule of law
and freedom. Removing the barriers to communications and to normal diplomatic relations are not
concessions as some would claim. Rather, they are practical initiatives that will reduce the dependence
of the Cuban people on the Cuban state by providing them with alternative sources of
information and resources to improve their daily lives. More critically, a policy based on helping the
Cuban people succeed would enable them to build civil society and begin a process of growing
democracy from the bottom up. But the Bush administration is standing by its policy that Cuba must change first, tying any
modification in our unilateral embargo to the end of the Castro regime. This does us and the Cuban people a
disservice because it ties our policy to that of Raúl Castro's. By waiting for the Cuban regime to act, we make policy
initiatives that would bring about change, dependent on the actions of the Cuban government.
The longer we wait the more likely that Cuba's new leaders will manage without us. In three to five years,
Cuba, with help from foreign investors, will have exploited deep-sea oil and its sugar cane ethanol, adding billions to
its annual revenues and making the island a net exporter of energy.
Lifting the whole embargo uniquely key—key to US influence
Pascual and Huddleston, 09 (Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution—Carlos Pascual, director Foreign Policy at Brookings Institution; and Vicki
Huddleston, co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition; “Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement”; page 9:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf , April 2009) JM
22/29
[File Name]
23/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Cuba policy should be a pressing issue for the ¶ Obama administration because it offers a unique
¶ opportunity for the president to transform our relations with the hemisphere . Even a slight shift
away ¶ from hostility to engagement will permit the United ¶ States to work more closely with
the region to effectively advance a common agenda toward Cuba. ¶ By announcing a policy of critical and constructive ¶
engagement at the April Summit of the Americas in ¶ Trinidad and Tobago, the president can prove that ¶ he has been listening
to the region. He can underline this commitment by removing all restrictions ¶ on travel and remittances on Cuban
Americans, ¶ and engaging in dialogue with the regime, as promised during his campaign . By reciprocally
improving our diplomatic relations with Cuba, we will enhance our understanding of the
island, its people, ¶ and its leaders. However, while these measures will ¶ promote
understanding, improve the lives of people ¶ on the island, and build support for a new
relationship between our countries, they are insufficient to ¶ ensure the changes needed to
result in normal diplomatic relations over time. ¶ if the president is to advance U.S. interests and ¶ principles, he will need a new
policy and a longterm strategic vision for U.S. relations with Cuba. ¶ if he is prepared to discard the failed policy of ¶ regime change and
adopt one of critical and constructive engagement, he and his administration ¶ will lay the foundations for a new
approach toward Cuba and the latin America . like his predecessors, president Obama has the authority ¶ to substantially modify embargo
has
the popular ¶ support—domestic and international—to engage ¶ Cuba, and, by so doing, to
staunch our diminishing influence on the island and recapture the high ¶ road in our relations with the
regulations in ¶ order to advance a policy of engagement that would ¶ broaden and deepen contacts with the Cuban ¶ people and their government. He
hemisphere . ¶ Although it will take Cuban cooperation to achieve ¶ a real improvement in relations, we
should avoid ¶ the mistake of predicating our initiatives on the ¶ actions of the Cuban
government. The United ¶ States must evaluate and act in its own interests. ¶ We must not tie our every action to those of
the ¶ Cuban government, because doing so would allow Cuban officials to set U.S. policy,
preventing ¶ the United States from serving its own interests.
The Castro Regime is only prospering—continuing a hardline approach only worsens the situation
Pascual and Huddleston, 07 (Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution—Carlos Pascual, director Foreign Policy at Brookings Institution; and Vicki
Huddleston, co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition; “Play a Part in Cuba's Future”;
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2007/04/20latinamerica-pascual; April 20th, 2007
) JM
With the campaign for president well under way, Republican candidates—and the Democrats will not be far behind—are
already adopting the anti-Castro rhetoric and stiff support for the embargo that has helped elect U.S. presidents,
members of Congress and Florida's governors. The Bush administration—by dictating policy and giving little in
return—has so far stuck to our hundred-year-old vice of treating Cuba as if it were a wayward
51st state. Neither side of this equation—dictating or giving little—has produced positive results
for U.S. foreign policy; it has merely transformed Cuba policy into a domestic political issue.
Whether it's Fidel or Raúl Castro—or some combination of the two— time is running out on U.S. policy on Cuba . During
the next five years, there will be an ongoing political transition in Cuba. Fidel may return to power, only to
be followed once again by Raúl if Fidel's health again deteriorates. And, Raúl at 75, is unlikely to rule long. As the
inherently unstable situation continues, the United States can sit on the side lines, allowing the
Revolution to regenerate and renew itself, or we can encourage reform by reducing Cuba's
isolation. Oil reserves If we continue to stubbornly insist that Cuba must first magically
transform itself into a functioning democracy before we talk, we will be out of luck. The appeal of
our aid, trade and investment will slip away. We will become irrelevant because Cuban, Venezuelan
and other foreign companies are now developing huge offshore oil reserves. When the oil begins to
flow, the income it generates will reinforce the ruling elite by creating jobs for Cuba's restless youth and by improving
lives. Cubans will no longer need the investment and jobs that Americans—especially Cuban
23/29
[File Name]
24/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Americans—could provide. Perhaps it is time for American oil companies to lead the way in opening up Cuba?
After all, the expropriation of these companies led President Eisenhower to impose the first comprehensive sanctions. It
will take courage and vision to change course, but the alternative is that neither the United
States nor Cuban Americans will play a part in Cuba's future. In Poland, Hungry, Czechoslovakia and the
Soviet Union before the fall of the Iron Curtain, our contacts spread the idea that there was an alternative way of life
and helped reinforce internal discontent with communism's failure. The following actions, although modest,
would allow the administration to seize the initiative after a half-century siesta: ¶ Modify our
isolationist policies—allow family and people-to-people visits—as their out-reach will reduce
social tensions, allowing for some reforms during the ongoing and uncertain transitional years.
-narcotics, crime, migration and preservation of the
environment. These objectives are as much in our interest as they are in Cuba's. ¶ Offer incentives for internal
reform, such as permitting direct telecommunications links and the sale of communications equipment. ¶ Encourage
the Organization of American States to begin a dialogue with the Cuban government about the political and economic
reforms that Cuba must undertake to again become an active member. When Ronald Reagan challenged Mikhail
Gorbachev to ''tear down that wall,'' he did so from a position of moral superiority. He believed that the values of
democracy and a market economy would prevail over authoritarianism and communism when
people had a chance to be exposed to bot h. If, as a nation, we still believe in these core values, the
implication should be clear—we should seek contact with the Cuban people to empower them to
take charge of their future. The price of partisan politics will be to persist in a failed policy that will continue to
give life to Castro's legacy, thereby preventing the contacts that would empower the Cuban people to take charge of
their future.
24/29
[File Name]
25/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
A2: Development/Neolib K
25/29
[File Name]
26/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Perm Solvency
The Embargo IS the neo-liberalist structure that should be the focus of the link—only through removing the embargo,
can the US be a messenger of liberty for the Cuban people; NOT an oppressor
Piccone, 11 (Ted Piccone, senior fellow and deputy director for Foreign Policy at Brookings. Piccone specializes in U.S.-Latin American
relations; global democracy and human rights; and multilateral affairs; “To Effect Change in Havana, Support the Cuban People”;
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/01/31-cuba-piccone; January 31st, 2011) JM
For 50 years now, the United States has seen Cuba as the enemy, with a long list of laws and
regulations codifying an embargo to show for it. Over the last two decades, however, as Cuba has sunk
lower and lower on the list of countries of concern to our security, it has become harder to justify our outdated, Cold War
notions of enemy and friend.¶ By any conventional measure, Cuba poses little to no security threat to the United States. Its active
military has shrunk from an estimated 235,000 in 1999 to 50,000 10 years later. According to the State Department, the regime no
longer has the resources to project power abroad. Its place on the official U.S. list of country sponsors of terrorism continues
despite the U.S. government's own conclusion that it provides no direct financial assistance to terrorist groups or armed struggle in the region or beyond.¶ Moreover,
Cuba's economy is in woeful condition. Its sugar industry has collapsed due to lower prices, the end of Soviet subsidies, mismanagement
and lack of investment, sapping the potential it offers in the era of ethanol. Economic activity has suffered further from
multiple devastating hurricanes and droughts. As a result, hundreds of thousands of public
employees are being forced off the government payroll with little hope of productive
employment in the near future.¶ As Cuba continues its inexorable decline, the United States has
remained on the sidelines while others have stepped in to throw Cuba a lifeline. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela
has led the way mainly through subsidized oil imports in exchange for Cuban medical services. China and Russia have also increased their trade, investments and
direct aid, including a $6 billion investment from China's state oil company to expand Cuba's main refinery. Spain and Canada remain robust partners, particularly in
tourism. And
although remittances from Cuban exiles play an important part both in improving the
lives of the Cuban people and generating revenue for the state, most reports indicate life has
gotten noticeably worse for most Cubans over the last decade .¶ If anything, the United States' main
concern now should be the potential of a failed state just 90 miles from its borders . Given the austerity measures recently adopted
by President Raul Castro, we should not be surprised to see an influx of Cuban economic migrants to our
shores, reviving fears of the chaos and turmoil generated during the rafters crisis of the early
1990s.¶ In addition to preventing a sudden and potentially violent collapse, the United States has a fundamental interest in
fostering a stable, prosperous and democratic Cuba, one that reflects the aspirations of the
Cuban people to determine their own destiny, freely chosen through a fair, open and
competitive democratic process. On this point, there is general bipartisan consensus in this country. The problem is there is
little agreement on how best to support those aspirations with a small but vocal minority of legislators, particularly from Florida and
New Jersey, demanding a continuation of the failed embargo policies of the past in the hopes the
regime will collapse any day now.¶ It is hard to understand how a unilateral policy of isolation
and punishment advances the cause of democracy and human rights in Cuba. Even in the bad days of the
Cold War, the United States championed support to rights advocates behind the Iron Curtain while simultaneously conducting direct diplomacy with states in the
Soviet sphere. When
history eventually turns in Cuba, as it will, should we be on the side of the Cuban
people who are fighting for a better future? Or will we be remembered for acts of aggression,
denial and obstruction?¶ President Obama has stepped gingerly into this dilemma, despite initial promises of "a new day" in U.S.-Cuban relations.
His April 2009 decision to expand travel and remittances for Cuban-Americans, restart
migration talks and loosen telecommunications regulations was the bare minimum down
payment on this vision of change. But shortly thereafter, Washington fell back into a tit-for-tat mode, allowing Havana to dictate the terms of
normalization. Even when positive steps were taken by the Castro regime — the release of more than 50 political prisoners since July 2010, and major economic
reforms that should reduce the dependence of the Cuban people on the state — the White House moved the goalposts, demanding more fundamental change as
well as the release of a U.S. government paid contractor arrested for providing technical support to the small Jewish community on the island.¶ Now, with ascendant
Republican voices in the new Congress, including control of key committees in the House by pro-embargo legislators from Florida, any hope for legislative action
needed to lift other restrictions like tourist travel is dashed. This despite polls that show a large majority of Americans, as well as a significant majority of CubanAmericans (67 percent), favor ending restrictions on all Americans to travel to our neighbor's shores.¶ It
was wise, therefore, for President
Obama to exercise his executive authority and announce on January 15 that he will permit
26/29
[File Name]
27/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
expanded exchanges between U.S. and Cuban academic, cultural and religious organizations.
The rules also allow financial transfers of up to $2,000 a year from any American to any Cuban
not in the senior ranks of the Cuban Communist Party — and more charter flights. These
measures will open the door for direct people-to-people engagement, allowing Americans to serve as our own
messengers for the kind of democratic and economic changes Cubans so desperately need.
Not surprisingly, they were
welcomed by a range of key actors, from the Ladies in White fighting for release of their loved ones jailed as political prisoners and other leading human rights
dissidents on the island, to academic, business, human rights and religious groups in the United States. The hardliners were aghast, though what punishment they will
seek to extract from the Obama administration remains to be seen.¶ At
the end of the day, the future of Cuba rests in the
hands of the Cuban people. Like oppressed peoples everywhere, they deserve the full support of
the American people as expressed through acts of solidarity, dialogue, trust and direct
assistance. That can happen only if both governments get out of the way and allow normal human discourse to
flow between two peoples too long separated by history and mistrust.
27/29
[File Name]
28/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
Growth Good
Economic Growth is key to stop global warming - innovation
Switkowski 10 - Former research physicist, is the chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation and a former chief executive of the Australian telecommunications company Telstra, Ziggy, Innovation has
climate change in hand, Cosmos, 2-3, http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/3283/innovation-will-producesolutions-climate-change-problem?page=0%2C0
The combination of slowing population growth, closing the lifestyle gap with the West and the
arrival of new clean energy systems supplying more efficient products and processes could
stabilise greenhouse effects by century end. Along the way, adapting to climate changes is a matter of
resources and resolve - barriers can be built to withstand sea-level rises, emergency services
can be improved, property and personnel can be better protected, and so on. But the legacy of generations of
excessive emissions remains: our climate and environment will be highly stressed and may yet be locked into a runaway warming trajectory. A key headline claim is
that the 200-year industrial era has brought the planet to within 100 years of irreversible climate catastrophe and that the responsibility lies with today's generation
This conclusion rests on the assumption that the risk of climate
catastrophe is growing faster than the rate at which technology can be developed to mitigate
this risk. Is this a reasonable assumption? The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently produced a list of the most significant
technical advances of the 20th century. The top 10 included: electrification, automobiles, airplanes,
water supply and distribution, electronics, radio and television, agricultural mechanisation,
computers, telephony, air conditioning and refrigeration (the early Internet appeared at No. 13). Might the 21st
century of innovation produce an even more influential list that, if appropriately prioritised,
includes the tools to address global warming before runaway effects occur? Today, even
seemingly permanent damage such as species extinction appears addressable with emerging
gene technology. Tomorrow, geo-engineering (extracting greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere), soil sequestration and non-fossil fuel systems may give us all the answers. Is it a
modern vanity to presume we must solve technological challenges today that will seem trivial to
society next century, especially if our history of technical innovation continues? (Afterall, as environmental
to prevent such a cataclysmic situation.
scientist Jesse Ausubel from The Rockefeller University, New York City, noted "At the start of the 20th century there was widespread concern that horse manure and
chimney smoke would bury or choke cities.") This reasoning does not suggest global inaction but emphasises the key role that public policy, innovation, research and
development must play. Climate change should be a global priority that leads to collaborative focused research efforts to find solutions. Australia's leadership in
carbon capture and storage technology is one good example of this. Nations
have to be wealthy enough to make the required
long-term investments in R&D. In any policy choice between economic growth and more conservative, restricted lifestyles, go for growth and
wealth creation supporting a culture of innovation every time.
Growth Solves Terrorism and collapse breeds it
Bremmer 9(Ian, - President of the Eurasia Group, sr. fellow @ World Policy Institute, , 3/4/09, Foreign Policy,
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/04/the_global_recession_heightens_terrorist_risks) ET
But there's another reason why the financial crisis heightens the risk of global terrorism. Militants thrive in
places where no one is fully in charge. The global recession threatens to create more such places. No matter how cohesive and determined a
terrorist organization, it needs a supportive environment in which to flourish. That means a location that
provides a steady stream of funds and recruits and the support (or at least acceptance) of the local population. Much of the counter-terrorist success we've seen
in Iraq's al Anbar province over the past two years is a direct result of an increased willingness of local Iraqis to help the Iraqi army and US troops oust the
militants operating there. In part, that's because the area's tribal leaders have their own incentives (including payment in cash and weaponry) for cooperating
with occupation forces. But it's also because foreign militants have alienated the locals. The security deterioration of the past year in Pakistan and Afghanistan
reflects exactly the opposite phenomenon. In the region along both sides of their shared border, local tribal leaders have yet to express much interest in helping
Pakistani and NATO soldiers target local or foreign militants. For those with the power to either protect or betray the senior al-Qaeda leaders believed to be
hiding in the region, NATO and Pakistani authorities have yet to find either sweet enough carrots or sharp enough sticks to shift allegiances. The
slowdown
threatens to slow the progress of a number of developing countries. Most states don't provide ground as fertile for
militancy as places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But as more people lose their jobs, their homes, and
opportunities for prosperity -- in emerging market countries or even within minority communities inside developed states -- it becomes easier for local
militants to find volunteers. This is why the growing risk of attack from suicide bombers and well-trained gunmen in
Pakistan creates risks that extend beyond South Asia. This is a country that is home to lawless regions where local
28/29
[File Name]
29/29
Interlake 13-14
[Name]
and international militants thrive, nuclear weapons and material, a history of nuclear smuggling, a cash-starved
government, and a deteriorating economy. Pakistan is far from the only country in which terrorism threatens to spill across borders.
29/29