Neg
Solvency
General
Russia should engage Latin America – it’s politically preferred and
the US is unpopular
Fillingham, 10 – (Zachary, BA in International Relations from York University, MA in
Chinese Studies from the University of London, recipient of a Taiwan Ministry of Education
Huayu Scholarship; “Russia Eyes Latin America,” Geopolitical Monitor, 5 April 2010,
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/russia-eyes-latin-america-3652)//HO
Russia is poised to occupy the diplomatic space created in Latin America by American decline.
Broadly speaking, there are two factors that are currently harming American interests in Latin America. The first is the burden of
history insofar that several governments view relations with the United States through the lens of Washington’s pseudo-colonial
past. The second is American decline, or in other words, a new reality in global politics that casts the United States as one important
player among several others. It follows that Latin American states now enjoy a greater degree of choice in
international economic, political, and military engagements. In many ways, Russia is a natural
winner here, for its’ capital, energy reserves, international influence, and military technology
represent an appealing alternative to feeding the politically unpopular perception of American
dominance in the region. Such was the dynamic at work during Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to
Venezuela. The visit resulted in the announcement of a $1 billion USD deal for a consortium of Russian energy companies to develop
the Hunin-6 oil field; a reserve that could end up producing up to 450,000 barrels a day by 2017. Venezuela needs technologyintensive capital to develop its vast energy reserves and is politically averse to dealing with Washington. Consequently, Russia is able
to step in as a natural partner. The same is true in the area of defense spending, as the Putin-Chavez summit also produced new
military deals that could ultimately amount to anywhere from $2-$5 billion USD. Moscow has pledged to provide Venezuela with a
variety of military hardware, including: T-72 tanks, Smerch rocket launchers, and other unspecified platforms. Bolivian President
Evo Morales also benefited from Vladimir Putin’s Latin American visit to the tune of $100 million USD worth of loans to buy
Russian helicopters. The political symbolism that underpins Russian re-engagement with Latin America cannot
be understated. From the Rio Group’s announcement of the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States (CELC)- a regional forum that excludes the United States- to Brazil’s more recent slapping of sanctions on a variety of
American trade goods, there is no shortage of evidence to show that Latin American states are
committed to moving out of the shadow of their powerful neighbor to the north. Given the trend of
Latin American assertiveness of late, we may see another big announcement coming down during the BRIC countries summit in
Brazil in mid-April. This issue carries symbolic weight on the Russian side as well. Re-engagement
with Latin America offers Moscow an opportunity to reclaim some of the international prestige
that vanished during the demise of the Soviet Union. To once again penetrate a region that carried so much
weight during the Cold War caters to Russian nationalist sentiments, which just so happens to be a central pillar of Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin’s political fortunes. That Putin did not cancel his scheduled trip to Venezuela after last week’s Moscow bombings is
indicative of the importance that is currently being placed on engagement with Latin America. Given the mutual benefits,
symbolic potency, and
the diplomatic space afforded by American decline, we should expect Russia to
continue to deepen relations with Latin American states, much to the displeasure of the Obama administration.
Bolivian President Morales’ calls for Russia to “return to Latin America” will likely go down in history as prophetic, because that is
exactly what’s going to happen.
Mahapatra 5/3(Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra, is an Indian commentator. His areas of
interests include conflict, terrorism, peace and development BRICS see greater role in Latin
America June 3,
2013 http://indrus.in/world/2013/06/03/brics_see_greater_role_in_latin_america_25721.ht
ml)
Last week witnessed some crucial developments from BRICS perspective. The Cuban foreign
minister visited New Delhi and sought BRICS’ partnership with Latin American countries,
representatives from Cuba, Haiti, Costa Rica and Chile met Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei
Lavrov in Moscow and sought Russian cooperation for the development of Latin American
countries and Chinese President, Xi Jinping toured Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica and
Mexico to widen Chinese engagement in the region.¶ Like Africa, Latin America is emerging as a
hub of economic development with huge natural resources; it is but natural that it has gained
increasing attention of the world. In this context, BRICS’ engagement in the region, consisting of
33 countries with population of 600 million, has become timely. The establishment of
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2011 has provided the region a
unified voice, and with Brazil being a member of BRICS as well as CELAC, the BRICS’
engagement in the region will be mutually beneficial with larger implications for the globe.¶
Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla told in New Delhi that “CELAC
wants to improve relations with BRICS.” He also stated, “We wish to seek a higher level of
economic cooperation with the India and the other BRICS nations, which we consider to be
valuable.” India is the first dialogue partner of the CELAC, which has provided the group a
format to develop closer relations with India in diverse areas particularly information
technology, medical services and tourism as elaborated by the Cuban minister. He further
announced, “We see an opportunity for mutually beneficial economic relations with India.” The
CELAC has a similar format of dialogue with China, which can be further extended to Russia
and South Africa. The CELAC, which consists of all countries of the two American continents,
but without the US and Canada, has recently started exploring economic relations with other
countries including economic power houses of the BRICS. Parrilla pointed out that there are
many common values and objectives between CELAC and BRICS, which need to be further
explored.¶ The foreign ministers of Cuba, Haiti and Costa Rica and deputy foreign minister of
Chile met Sergei Lavrov in the Russian capital to deliberate on various issues including
promoting dialogue, trade and visa-free regime. The joint communiqué brought out the
commonalities of interests in the areas of tackling terrorism, developing economic relations,
promoting democracy, advancing principles of international law and the United Nations
Charter, countering transnational organized crime, and tackling other threats and challenges.
Lavrov stated at the end of the meeting, “Our friends have expressed their desire to make
permanent contacts between the CELAC and BRICS … We believe this is a very attractive
suggestion and we will definitely discuss it with other states that are members of this
association.” Russian foreign ministry also expressed the idea of establishing a permanent
mechanism for political dialogue and cooperation between Russia and CELAC. ¶ China has
started pursuing vigorously its Latin American policy. It has already replaced the US as the
largest trading partner of Brazil and Chile. Its trade with Latin America has grown since the last
decade. From 2000 to 2011, it has grown 20 fold, from $3.9 billion to $86 billion. Chinese
Assistant Foreign Minister, Zheng Zeguang on the eve of Xi Jinping’s visit to Latin America
dispelled any notion of competition between China and the US in the region and stated that
China can work with the US in a framework based on mutual trust, equality and inclusiveness.
Xi was received by the Prime Minister of Trindad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Besides
this Caribbean country, Jinping also visited Costa Rica and Mexico. China is looking forward to
widen its investment in the exploration of natural resources including energy resources in the
region.¶ Related:¶ Russia seeks to restore influence in Latin America¶ BRICS continue African
engagement¶ BRICS profile continues to rise¶ BRICS “key element of the emerging multipolar
world”- Putin¶ The BRICS’ engagement with CELAC is not only a factor in promoting
multilateralism and fostering a multi-polar world structure, but it also accrues economic
advantages to both the groupings. While the BRICS members are fast rising economies with
huge financial resources, the CELAC countries have also registered growth despite global
economic slowdown. The Latin American countries are also rich in natural resources. The Union
of South American Nations on Natural Resources and Integral Development in its meeting in
Venezuelan capital Caracas last week emphasized on natural resources and their exploration for
the development of the region. Latin America reportedly has 38 percent of copper, 21 percent of
iron, 65 percent of lithium reserves, 42 percent of silver, and 33 percent of tin. It also contains
about 30 percent of the total of the world’s water resources and 21 percent of the world’s natural
forests. Some of the Latin American countries such as Mexico and Venezuela are rich in energy
resources. The huge population of CELAC makes the region a vast market for investment and
also for import from the BRICS countries.¶ The rising prowess of the BRICS will grow with its
Latin American engagement. Though many of the initiatives discussed above are related to
individual members of the BRICS, this adds to the collective sphere of influence of the grouping.
As the members’ Latin American engagement takes more dynamic shape, the prospects of
collective engagement as a group can be explored. The grouping can evolve common strategies
in exploring the resources in the region for mutual advantage. In this venture, the proposed
BRICS bank can be an effective tool.
Cuba
Cuba wants Russia cooperation
Xinhua, 5/18 – (Xinhua News Agency, citing Cuban parliament speaker Esteban Lazo;
“Cuba seeks greater economic cooperation with Russia,”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2013-05/18/c_132390893.htm)//HO
Cuban parliament speaker Esteban Lazo said here Friday that his country is interested in expanding
economic cooperation with Russia.¶ Lazo, president of Cuba's unicameral parliament, the People's Power National
Assembly, made the remarks after signing an inter-parliamentary cooperation agreement with Valentina Matviyenko, chairwoman
of Russia's Federation Council.¶ "The relations between Cuba and Russia are at an expansion moment ,"
Lazo said, adding that Matviyenko's visit would further promote the "excellent" historical and friendly ties between the two
governments and peoples.¶ On Friday, Matviyenko also held talks with Cuban President Raul Castro.¶ Lazo
suggested that besides its investment in Cuba's oil sector, Russia should also increase
investment on the island in the spheres of nickel production, tourism and agriculture.¶ Havana and
Moscow were close allies during the Cold War era, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the relations cooled off until
2005 when both governments started to relaunch their traditional bonds with an exchange of visits of national leaders in the next
few years.
Russia wants to expand bilateral links with cuba
Latin Press 5/17/13 – (“Cuba and Russia Highlight Importance of Developing Bilateral
Links”
May 17, 2013 http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english/index.php/show/articles/14389:cubaand-russia-highlight-importance-of-developing-bilateral-links) DF
Russian Parliament president Valentina Matviyenko and her Cuban counterpart, Esteban Lazo,
coincided Friday in the importance of keeping on the development of the bilateral relations
between Cuba and Russia, which both regarded as excellent.¶ ¶ In a meeting celebrated at the National Hotel in Havana, both
expressed their satisfaction for the presence of a Russian delegation in Cuba, and this will
contribute to strengthen the inter-parliamentary links, and also in other aspects.¶ ¶ The president of the
Council of the Russian Federation highlighted that Cuba is not only a strategic partner of her
country, but a friend for whom they feel a special affection forged in historical relations
accumulated for many years.¶ ¶ Matviyenko congratulated Esteban Lazo for his election last February as president of the Parliament of
the island, and praised the rejuvenated composition and with high feminine representation. ¶ ¶ This women's wide presence in the Cuban Parliament is
an example to be followed, she said.¶ ¶ The
visitor added that although in the Federal Assembly of Russia there
are representatives of diverse political currents, there exists a consensus referred to the
importance of extending relations with Cuba.¶ ¶ For his part, the parliamentary leader of the
Caribbean island emphasized in the impulse started to the bilateral links from the visits of the
Cuban President, Raúl Castro to Moscow in July, 2012; and of the Prime Minister of Russia, Dimitri Medvedev, to
Havana in February 2013.¶ ¶ Lazo pointed out that more than 30 agreements of cooperation have
been signed, and only it remains to implement them and give them pursuit.¶ ¶ The bilateral economic agenda, he added,
allows having a clear idea of the development of these links.¶ ¶ Lazo highlighted the importance of
the investment process that Russia does in Cuba in the oil sector, and mentioned the Cuban
interest to extend investments to other spheres such as the production of nickel, tourism and
agriculture.¶ ¶ The parts also referred to agreements to finish pendent matters.
Cuba wants more cooperation with Russia
Scaliger, 8 – (Charles, “Russia and Cuba Get Cozy,” 1 September 2008,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/south-america/item/10483-russia-and-cubaget-cozy)//HO
As tension over the Russian occupation of Georgia continues to simmer, Moscow is quietly stirring the embers of the
Cold War in another part of the world — still-communist Cuba. In August, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin and
Russian Security Council Secretary General Nikolai Patrushev traveled to Havana and met with Cuban President Raul Castro. ¶
Recently, Russia has expressed interest in reviving both economic and military ties with its erstwhile
Caribbean client state, ties that languished after the implosion of the Soviet Union in the early ’90s. Cuba, for its part, is
interested in cultivating partnerships with other regimes besides Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela. While Cuba
has long resented what it regards as Moscow’s abrupt betrayal and abandonment of the Castro regime at the end of the Cold War,
every indication points to a willingness on both sides to bury the hatchet. After the 9/11 attacks in 2001,
Russia supposedly abandoned the huge Soviet-built Cuban electronic eavesdropping center at Lourdes, which was run by 1,500
Russian military and KGB/FSB technicians, but that has not been verified. But Cuba continues to monitor and jam American
government and civilian signals and broadcasts — either from Lourdes or the Communist Chinese-built facility 20 miles from
Havana.¶ “Russia seeks to reassert itself as a world power, which includes a renewed presence in
Latin America, while Cuba wants to diversify its economic partners to reduce its dependence on
Venezuela,” explained Dan Erikson at Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., as reported in a recent Reuters story.¶
Russia has also signaled a willingness to re-establish a military presence in Cuba, including a possible missile defense system.
Referring to Russian anger at the U.S. deal to set up a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Cuba expert Phil
Peters at the Lexington Institute in Virginia told Jeff Franks of Reuters, “Russia is clearly irritated at what it perceives as U.S.
meddling in its neighborhood. It seems to be sending a message that if you play on our periphery, we’ll play in yours.”¶ Some U.S.
analysts were doubtful Cuba would rebuild its military alliance with Russia. “It’s impossible to imagine that anyone in the Cuban
leadership would want to put their country in the bull’s eye of another superpower showdown reminiscent of the missile crisis,”
Brian Latell, a former CIA analyst, told Jeff Franks.¶ The Putin/Medvedev government, however, is offering a very different take.
Following the Sechin and Patrushev visit to Havana, the Russian Security Council said in a statement that the two countries
had agreed to work “to restore traditional relations in all areas of cooperation.”
Russia wants engagement with Cuba
AP, 8 – (Associated Press, citing Putin and Vice Premier Sechin; “Ex-Russian President
Vladimir Putin Calls for Restoration of Influence in Cuba,” 4 August 2008,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/04/ex-russian-president-vladimir-putin-calls-forrestoration-influence-in-cuba/)//HO
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for Russia to restore its influential position in former Cold War ally
Cuba, Russian news reports said Monday.¶ The statement comes amid persistent speculation about whether Russia is seeking a
military presence in the country just 90 miles from the United States in response to U.S. plans to place missile-defense elements in
Poland and the Czech Republic.¶ "We should restore our position in Cuba and other countries," Putin was quoted as saying by the
Interfax news agency.¶ Putin spoke Monday while hearing a report on a recent Russian delegation's trip to Cuba. Vice Premier Igor
Sechin and others met with the Cuban leadership and discussed an array of cooperation
projects.¶ "We agreed on the priority for the direction of cooperation -- energy, mining,
agriculture transport, health care and communications," Sechin said, according to the RIA-Novosti news
agency.¶ Military issues were not mentioned in the reports. But separately RIA-Novosti quoted an influential
analyst and former top defense official as saying Russia could make a military return to Cuba. ¶ "It is not a secret that the West is
creating a 'buffer zone' around Russia, involving countries in central Europe, the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Ukraine," the
agency quoted Leonid Ivashov, the head of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, as saying. "In response, we may expand our
military presence abroad, including in Cuba."
Improving Russia relations solve Liberalization of Cuban economy
Butrin 13 (Dimitri Butrin, WHY IS RUSSIA WRITING OFF BILLIONS OF CUBA'S DEBT?
2013-02-28,http://www.worldcrunch.com/business-finance/why-is-russia-writing-off-billionsof-cuba-039-s-debt-/medvedev-castro-soviet-union-ussr-oil-offshore-drilling/c2s11038/,//AR)
HAVANA - No one was expecting groundbreaking developments from Dmitry Medvedev’s less-than-24-hour visit to Havana last
week.¶ But on the evening of Feb. 21, Medvedev quietly joined Raul Castro and other representatives of the
Cuban government at the Palace of the Revolution to sign a major debt-restructuring agreement.
Medvedev also met with Fidel Castro, who remains at the center of Cuban politics.¶ The debtrestructuring plan relates to outstanding bills incurred by Cuba during the time of the Soviet Union, which Russia at least
theoretically has the rights to collect on. There is no official sum given for the amount of debt involved: Russia says that the total
debt amount owed by Cuba is more than $30 billion, but during negotiations between Russia and Cuba related to the debt in 2008,
both sides generally were discussing between $20 billion and $22 billion. The official amount of foreign debt that Cuba has
recognized – but not serviced since 1987 – is $11 billion.¶ Cuba holds the largest Soviet-era debts, and countries with smaller debts,
such as Afghanistan and Iraq, have already restructured their debts with Russia. ¶ But Cuba’s unrecognized debts to
Russia have hindered Cuba’s international trade for several years. It has impeded Cuban efforts
to restructure its debt with other countries and given it credit problems, worsening the effects of the U.S.
trade embargo on Cuba .¶ The change in status for the lion’s share of Cuba’s international debt – if it is not
accompanied by a stricter sanctions from the U.S. –
lending market,
will allow Cuba to re-enter the international
although in a somewhat limited capacity.
That gives economic liberalization a
chance at spreading throughout Cuba.¶ The terms of the debt restructuring are still unknown, and both sides
seem intent on keeping it a secret. But in other cases where Russia has agreed to restructure Soviet-era debt, the deal has involved
writing off between 90% and 95% of the debt. So it is unlikely that Cuba will end up owing more than $3 billion. ¶ Ulterior motives?¶
There are several theories circulating among experts, however. One is that “opening” the relationship with Cuba is a type of
insurance against changes in Venezuela. Another theory is that the interest in working with Cuba could be related to attempts to find
oil off the Cuban coast.¶ Since 2008 there have been discussions about the possibility of a large offshore oil deposit near the northern
coast of Cuba. Venezuelan company PdVSA, the Malaysian Petronas, Russian Zarubezhneft and the Spanish Repsol have explored
the area and decided, in 2012, that there was no commercially usable oil. But in December Zarubezhneft started a second round of
explorations in a deeper area. The second round of tests will wrap up in June, but the results could theoretically be available
already.¶ If Zarubezhneft does find oil, it is entitled to sign an agreement with the Cuban state-owned oil company, Siret, to share
exploitation of the deposits from now until 2034. Zarubezhneft did not comment on the issue. Local sources said there was no news
on the second round of explorations. Regardless, Russia’s rush to complete the debt-restructuring process by Sept. 2013 could be
related to the possibility of major oil reserves in Cuban coastal waters.¶ Regardless of the oil situation, Russia is trying to
restore active trade with Cuba. The Federal Customs Service has already signed agreements with
Cuba on information sharing and preferential tariffs. Cuba has also signed several contracts to
purchase Russian airplanes. Hardly a return to the Cold War bustle between the two countries, but it was time to get back
to business.
Cuba Oil
Russia key to Cuban off-shore drilling
Butrin 13 (Dimitri Butrin, WHY IS RUSSIA WRITING OFF BILLIONS OF CUBA'S DEBT?
2013-02-28,http://www.worldcrunch.com/business-finance/why-is-russia-writing-off-billionsof-cuba-039-s-debt-/medvedev-castro-soviet-union-ussr-oil-offshore-drilling/c2s11038/,//AR)
HAVANA - No one was expecting groundbreaking developments from Dmitry Medvedev’s less-than-24-hour visit to Havana last
week.¶ But on the evening of Feb. 21, Medvedev quietly joined Raul Castro and other representatives of the
Cuban government at the Palace of the Revolution to sign a major debt-restructuring agreement.
Medvedev also met with Fidel Castro, who remains at the center of Cuban politics.¶ The debtrestructuring plan relates to outstanding bills incurred by Cuba during the time of the Soviet Union, which Russia at least
theoretically has the rights to collect on. There is no official sum given for the amount of debt involved: Russia says that the total
debt amount owed by Cuba is more than $30 billion, but during negotiations between Russia and Cuba related to the debt in 2008,
both sides generally were discussing between $20 billion and $22 billion. The official amount of foreign debt that Cuba has
recognized – but not serviced since 1987 – is $11 billion.¶ Cuba holds the largest Soviet-era debts, and countries with smaller debts,
such as Afghanistan and Iraq, have already restructured their debts with Russia. ¶ But Cuba’s unrecognized debts to
Russia have hindered Cuba’s international trade for several years. It has impeded Cuban efforts
to restructure its debt with other countries and given it credit problems, worsening the effects of the U.S.
trade embargo on Cuba .¶ The change in status for the lion’s share of Cuba’s international debt – if it is not
accompanied by a stricter sanctions from the U.S. –
lending market,
will allow Cuba to re-enter the international
although in a somewhat limited capacity.
That gives economic liberalization a
chance at spreading throughout Cuba.¶ The terms of the debt restructuring are still unknown, and both sides
seem intent on keeping it a secret. But in other cases where Russia has agreed to restructure Soviet-era debt, the deal has involved
writing off between 90% and 95% of the debt. So it is unlikely that Cuba will end up owing more than $3 billion. ¶ Ulterior motives?¶
There are several theories circulating among experts, however. One is that “opening” the relationship with Cuba is a type of
insurance against changes in Venezuela. Another theory is that the interest in working with Cuba could be related to attempts to find
oil off the Cuban coast.¶ Since 2008 there have been discussions about the possibility of a large offshore oil deposit near the northern
coast of Cuba. Venezuelan company PdVSA, the Malaysian Petronas, Russian Zarubezhneft and the Spanish Repsol have
explored the area and decided, in 2012, that there was no commercially usable oil. But in December Zarubezhneft started
a
second round of explorations in a deeper area. The second round of tests will wrap up in June, but the results could
theoretically be available already.¶ If Zarubezhneft does find oil, it is entitled to sign an agreement with the
Cuban state-owned oil company, Siret, to share exploitation of the deposits from now until
2034. Zarubezhneft did not comment on the issue. Local sources said there was no news on the second round of explorations.
Regardless, Russia’s rush to complete the debt-restructuring process by Sept. 2013 could be related
to the possibility of major oil reserves in Cuban coastal waters.¶ Regardless of the oil situation, Russia is
trying to restore active trade with Cuba. The Federal Customs Service has already signed
agreements with Cuba on information sharing and preferential tariffs. Cuba has also signed
several contracts to purchase Russian airplanes. Hardly a return to the Cold War bustle between the two countries,
but it was time to get back to business.
Russia can successful drill for oil in Cuban waters
Miroff 12(Nick Miroff, earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American literature
at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate
School of Journalism. Pulitzer Prize Winner , Russian for Cuba's oil , June 28, 2012
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/120627/russia-oil-rig-drillcuban-oil-zarubezhneft-songa-mercur //AR)
HAVANA, Cuba — For 30 years, generous oil subsidies from Moscow kept the lights on for Fidel Castro’s Cuban Revolution. Until
the Soviet Union went kaput.¶ Now, Russian state oil companies may be coming to Cuba’s rescue again.¶ Oil
industry journals reported this week that a Soviet-built,
Norwegian-owned drilling platform is headed for
Cuban waters this summer, under contract with Moscow-based state company Zarubezhneft.¶ The company has hired
the rig, called the Songa Mercur, at a cost of $88 million for nearly a year, with plans to begin drilling in
November. That should be enough time to poke plenty of holes in search of Cuba’s elusive undersea
oil fields, which are thought to hold billions of barrels of crude but have yet to yield a decent
strike.¶ The rig’s arrival couldn’t come at a better time for the Castro government and its state oil
company, CubaPetroleo. The state firm has signed multiple contracts in recent years with foreign producers looking to drill in
Cuban waters.¶ Another drilling platform, the Scarabeo 9, has been working off the island’s north coast this year, but has come up
dry, dealing a blow to Havana’s hopes for weaning the island off imported crude.¶ Cuba currently gets about two-thirds of its fuel
from socialist ally Hugo Chavez. But the Venezuelan president has been battling cancer and must campaign for re-election in
October.¶ The Scarabeo 9 has been Cuba’s best hope. The Chinese-built, Italian-owned rig arrived late last year,
opening a gusher of anxieties in the US. Environmental groups and Florida tourism operators worried about damage from a
potential spill. Anti-Castro lawmakers worried an oil strike would give the Cuban government a cash
windfall.¶ Repsol, the Spanish oil company that first hired the rig, was the subject of hearings on Capitol Hill, and the Obama
administration made the unusual move of sending an inspection team to visit the platform when it stopped in Trinidad en route to
Cuban waters.¶ But the state-of-the-art Scarabeo 9 was made for the Cuba job — literally. It is the only
rig in the world designed specifically to comply with US trade sanctions against Cuba, which limit the
amount of US technology that can be used in Cuban territory to no more than 10 percent.¶ So far the rig has come up empty in
Cubans waters. Having spent more than $100 million for a dry well and a political headache, Repsol executives have announced
they’re pulling out of Cuba.¶ Scarabeo 9 is now in the hands of Russia’s Gazprom Neft, which is drilling
in Cuban waters at another offshore location in partnership with Malaysia’s Petronas. Results may
be announced as soon as next month.¶ ¶ The Songa Mercur will be working much closer to shore. Built in 1989 at the Soviet Union’s
Vybord Shipyards, its maximum drilling depth is just 1,200 feet of water, according to the rig’s specifications.¶ Jorge Piñon, an
expert on Cuban oil exploration at the University of Texas, said the Songa Mercur was retrofitted and modernized in 2006 in
Galveston, Texas, after it was purchased from a Mexican firm by Norway’s Songa Offshore SE. It’s currently working in Malaysia.¶
Unlike the Scarabeo 9, the Songa Mercur is loaded with US technology, including five Caterpillar generators, General Electric mud
pump motors, and cementing equipment made by Halliburton. That will likely leave Russian operator Zarubezhneft in violation of
the US’ Cuba sanctions, Piñon said.¶ Not that there’s much the US government can do about it.¶ “This is a Russian state oil company,
and they do not have US assets or interests to safeguard,” said Piñon, a former British Petroleum executive.
Russia has lesgislation in place to prevent oil spills and to minimize
the impacts of spills
RIA Novosti 12(RIA Novosti June 21 2011 (RIA Novosti) Russian govt plans to tighten rules
on prevention of shelf oil spills http://en.rian.ru/business/20110621/164749264.html //AR)
The Russian government plans to entrust oil companies working on the continental shelf with the duty of
preventing spills and eliminating consequences, the government said on Tuesday.¶ Authorities plan to
amend federal laws on the Russian continental shelf and on internal sea waters, inland seas and Russia's contiguous zone.¶
In particular, under the draft of the law, companies will be obliged to have plans on the prevention
and elimination of oil and oil product spills.¶ Moreover, the companies working on the shelf will have
to verify their financial ability to carry out measures aimed at preventing and eliminating
accidental oil spills, including the possible attraction of additional forces and funds. The companies will also have
to fully compensate for damages, including aquatic bioresources and third parties.¶ The new
rules will be applied to companies using man-made islands, facilities and installations, offshore pipelines, as
well as to those companies carrying out drilling operations, transportation and storage of oil and oil products on the Russian
continental shelf, in internal seas and other inland waters.¶ In April 2010, five million barrels of oil poured into the Gulf of Mexico,
damaging the fragile wetlands of Louisiana, washing oil products ashore in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and hitting coastal
industries including fishing and tourism.¶ The spill was stopped only on August 4
Russia leads the way for oil spill prevention
RIA Novosti 13(RIA Novosti Arctic Council Signs Oil Spill Response Deal,5/12/2013,
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130515/181163818.html //AR)
KIRUNA, May 15 (RIA Novosti) – Foreign ministers from the Arctic Council’s member states have signed
a legally binding agreement on preventing and responding to oil spills in the Arctic to protect the
region’s waters, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.¶ The treaty is “an
effective tool protecting the Arctic environment at a time of active exploration of the opening Arctic
deposits, and shows the firm responsibility of the Arctic states for the situation in the region,” Lavrov said at the opening of the
council’s ministerial session in Sweden’s northernmost city of Kiruna.¶ Lavrov said he “welcomed” the decision to expand the council
by granting the so-called observer status to new states. China, Italy and four other Asian countries - India, Japan, South Korea and
Singapore - gained observer status on the Council at a meeting on Wednesday. The Council also said it “positively” viewed the idea of
granting the European Union observer status. However, a decision on the EU status has been deferred because of Canada’s concern
over an EU ban on import of seal products, which came into effect in August.¶ “Interest in the Arctic is on the rise. In particular, this
is confirmed by the growth of the number of aspirants seeking to obtain an observer status in the Arctic Council,” Lavrov said.¶ Gao
Feng, head of China's delegation to the event, told Xinhua after the decision granting China's observer status was announced: "China
will first get to know the Arctic better, and then it will be able to join in international cooperation effectively." ¶ The Arctic Council
intergovernmental forum, comprising Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States, was
established in 1996 to protect the Arctic region's environment and its indigenous peoples.¶ Russia has stepped up exploration of its
Arctic oil and gas reserves in recent years, and has signed agreements with international partners including Shell, Statoil, Total and
ExxonMobil to help exploit the region’s natural resources.¶ © RIA Novosti.¶ National claims to the Arctic shelf¶ But
environmental activists claim accidents in the area could have dire consequences, both because
of fragility of the Arctic ecosystem and the complexity of cleaning up spills in remote areas. ¶ The
Arctic has also become an increasingly important region in economic and political terms thanks
to climate change. The Arctic territories, believed to hold vast untapped oil and gas reserves, have been the subject of claims
by the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark, with rising temperatures leading to a reduction in sea ice making
hydrocarbon deposits under the Arctic Ocean increasingly accessible.¶
Russia Relations to Cuba key to the Cuban Economy and Offshore
drilling
Lyakhov and Korotun 13(Alexei Lyakhov, Lada Korotun, writers for the voice of Russia,
Russia-Cuba ties are seeing renaissance - official http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_05_19/RussiaCuba-ties-are-seeing-renaissance-official/19 May, 16:44 //AR)
Matviyenko has also praised the expansion of bilateral partnership, trade,
economic, scientific and humanitarian cooperation between the countries.¶ "The
came to Havana to upgrade and boost parliamentary cooperation between
the two countries. We discussed a number of issues during a two-hour talk, including Fidel
Castro’s health, Valentina Matviyenko told reporters on her flight back to Moscow, adding that
Comandante is feeling ok and is following a strict regime under tight medical supervision."¶
Apart from being Russia’s important strategic partner Cuba is also its good and reliable friend,
Valentina Matviyenko said. ¶ "Our countries have special bonds of fraternity and mutual respect
and Russia has really warm and sincere feelings for Cubans. We love our Cuban friends and are
ready for cooperation. Havana and Moscow became close allies under Fidel Castro and 2013
marks 50 years since his first visit to the USSR – the event is celebrated in Moscow and some
other Russian cities. Now bilateral cooperation is on the rise and is mainly focused on trade and
economy. Though last year’s trade turnover accounted for some modest 220 mln dollars we have
a great potential to expand it."¶ The streets of Havana have many signs of long-lasting
friendship like Soviet-made cars.¶ Despite Cuba’s turn to foreign investors, the US doesn’t haste
to lift its sanctions so Havana eyes working with Russia.¶ Esteban Lazo, president of Cuba’s
National Assembly, spoke about the prospects of bilateral energy cooperation, like Russia’s hand
in constructing new units and supplying equipment for Cuban power plants which were built
with the aid of Soviet Union.¶ Havana also expects Moscow’s help in exploring oil in its Gulf of
Mexico wells and further construction of refineries.¶ Russia’s investments in Cuba’s oil sector
are really important and we expect other Russian companies, not only Zarubezhneft, joining the
process. Cuba also eyes cooperation with Russia in nickel production, tourism and agriculture as
well as measures to refurbish and upgrade Mariel and Santa Cruz del Norte power plants.¶
Russia and Cuba are long-term partners. Thus, Cubana air carrier uses Russian Tupolev Tu-204
planes. Cuba has imported some worth 12 mln dollar power plant equipment from Russia in the
last three years and has recently resumed purchase of Russian tractors.¶ Russian tourists are
also contributing to Cuba’s economic revival - some 90,000 holiday-makers from Russia visited
Russian Senate delegation
the Island of Freedom last year¶ Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_05_19/Russia-Cubaties-are-seeing-renaissance-official/¶
Drug War
Russia solves the drug trade – regional expertise and it increases
influence
Bargent 13 (James Bargent, independent journalist, 3-20-13, “Russia Looks to Increase
Influence in Latin America Drug War,” http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/russiainfluence-latin-america-drug-war) gz
Russia is to step up multilateral cooperation in counternarcotics operations in Latin America, in
what may also be a play to increase its geopolitical influence in the region.¶ The director of
Russia's Federal Narcotics Service, Viktor Ivanov, announced plans to work with several Latin
American countries in carrying out joint counternarcotics operations, training law enforcement
agencies, improving user rehabilitation facilities, and helping develop common anti-drug
policies.¶ Much of that investment will be in Nicaragua, where Russia is setting up an anti-drug
training center, which will see Russian law enforcement experts train agents from seven
countries in areas such as tactics and use of technology.¶ Ivanov also announced plans to
increase security cooperation with Peru, and, in the coming year, begin training, information
exchange, and joint monitoring of trafficking operations.¶ Ivanov added that Moscow police had
identified trafficking routes into Russia in which cocaine is concealed in plantain shipments
leaving Ecuador or in Colombian flowers shipped to Russia from via the Netherlands. He also
highlighted West Africa as an increasingly popular transit point.
Mexico
Russia should engage Mexico – recent success means Nieto wants
more cooperation
SRE, 10 – (Secretary of Exterior Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico; “THE
FOREIGN MINISTRY HOLDS A SEMINAR ON OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MEXICO-RUSSIA
RELATIONSHIP,”
http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1794:theforeign-ministry-holds-a-seminar-on-opportunities-in-the-mexico-russiarelationship&catid=27:archives&Itemid=64)//HO
• Trade between the two countries has grown over 200 percent in the past two years.¶ • Russia is
now the third largest export market for Mexican meat products.¶ The Directorate General of International
Cooperation and Economic Development of the Mexican Agency for International Development (AMEXCID) organized a
seminar on "Opportunities in the Mexico-Russia Relationship." The event was chaired by Mexico’s new
ambassador in Russia, Ruben Beltran.¶ Representatives from various Mexican companies interested in doing
business with Russia, from the Mexican Business Council for Foreign Trade, Investment and Technology (COMCE) and
ProMéxico attended.¶ In the last three years, the economic relationship between Mexico and Russia
has expanded significantly in the areas of tourism, trade and investment. Particularly, over the last
two years, bilateral trade increased by 219 percent. Russian tourism to Mexico has increased from
27,000 in 2010 to 42,000 in 2011 and nearly 45,000 in the first half of 2012. This increase has been made possible in part by the
establishment of several direct flights between the two countries.¶ This dynamism can also be seen in exports such
as food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and auto parts. As a result of these trends, Russia has become the third
largest export market for Mexican meat.¶ The private sector representatives at the seminar stressed the great
potential of the two emerging economies, especially in strategic sectors such as the energy,
automotive, food and high value-added industries. There was a fruitful exchange of experiences
on best practices to drive business with Russia.¶ This seminar arises from the instructions of
President Enrique Peña Nieto that foreign policy must contribute to Mexico’s goals in the five strategic areas
he has outlined, including promoting development through trade, reciprocal investment and
cooperation with priority countries, as well as ensuring that Mexico acts with global responsibility.
Mexico wants a bigger investment relationship with Russia
Arriola, 11 – (Roberto, Vice-President of Edelman Public Affairs Latin America, BA in
Political Science and Public Administration and a Master in Communication at the Universidad
Iberoamericana, “Mexico – Mexico and Russia Strengthen Their Bilateral Relations,”
http://publicaffairslatinamerica.com/2011/06/mexico-and-russia-strengthen-their-bilateralrelations/)//HO
Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa made an official visit to Moscow and St. Petersburg on June 2728 at the invitation of the Russian government and in reciprocity for the visit to Mexico by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
in 2010. The Foreign Secretary’s visit was to promote the political dialogue and bilateral economic
relationship and to strengthen all aspects of cooperation between the two countries.¶ During the
meeting between the two officials, they agreed to seek a meeting between Presidents Felipe Calderón Hinojosa and Dmitry
Medvedev, as the high point of the celebrations of the 120th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Mexico and Russia. Foreign
Secretary Espinosa announced that the Mexican government has made the policy decision to
consider Russia as a market economy, and will seek to increase the economic exchanges
between the two countries to achieve the potential of their economies.¶ On economic and trade matters,
the Foreign Secretary said that the Mexican government would continue working with Russian
authorities to make the investment relationship grown on a par with the bilateral trade
relationship.¶ She reiterated Mexico’s interest in establishing itself as a popular destination for Russian tourists. She noted that
just last April, Russian tourism to Mexico had increased almost 40% over the same month of 2010.¶ During her visit to St.
Petersburg, Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa was received by the Lieutenant Governor of the City of St. Petersburg, Oseevsky
Mikhail Eduardovich, whom she thanked for organizing the Mexican cultural days in St. Petersburg from June 2-5, 2011. She also
reiterated Mexico’s interest in having more of an economic and cultural presence in that important Baltic port.¶ Russia is
Mexico’s largest trading partner from among the European countries that are not part of the
European Union (EU) or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA); the leading exporter and importer; and ranks 30th at the
international level.
Renewables
Russia increasing incentives for Renewable energy development now
Roca 5/24/13 – (Marc, reporter at Bloomberg, May 24 2013 “Russia Approves Subsidy
Program to Boost Renewable-Energy Output” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0524/russia-approves-subsidy-program-to-boost-renewable-energy-output.html) DF
Russia approved an incentive program to boost renewable-energy production, targeting almost
6 gigawatts of new capacity by 2020 and its first solar parks.¶ The government yesterday signed a
decree that includes measures to support wind, photovoltaic and small hydropower projects
across the country, Dmitry Babanskiy, a spokesman for the Energy Ministry, said today by e-mail.¶ The measures will
increase the proportion of renewable energy to 2.5 percent of power generation by 2020 from
0.8 percent now, he said.
Russia has cost effective renewables
Martinot 99(E. Martinot, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Russia: Perspectives
and Problems ofInternational Technology Transfer and Investment. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of California at Berkeley, Renewable energy in Russia: markets,¶ development and
technology transfer¶ 12 January 1999 *page 1 http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_RSER3.pdf//AR))
Five potential markets in Russia
offer commercial opportunities for renewable energy¶ that are nearly
cost-competitive with conventional forms of energy grid-connected¶ electricity from wind
power, electricity for villages and small settlements from hybrid winddiesel and biomass, district heating for
buildings from biomass, hot water for buildings¶ from solar thermal, and electricity and heat from geothermal. Over the last
several decades¶ the Soviet Union conducted research and development on several forms of
renewable¶ energy. Technological infrastructure, scienti®c and technical knowledge,
engineering and¶ technical skills, and factories and equipment are all welldeveloped assets . But the¶ translation of these assets into commercial renewable energy technologies and markets is a¶
problem because associated market-oriented skills and institutions are still lacking. Many¶ barriers also exist, including lack of
information and demonstration experience, lack of¶ long-term commercial ®nancing, a perceived climate of high investment risk,
technology¶ acceptance, some direct and indirect energy price subsidies (most energy prices have risen to¶ ``market'' levels), utility
monopolies and the absence of operational regulatory frameworks¶ for independent power producers, and historical enterprise
specialization. Market¶ intermediation is very important for renewable-energy investments and technology transfer,¶ providing the
knowledge, information, skills, services, ®nancing, and analysis that is¶ necessary to overcome barriers. Joint ventures with
foreign multinational corporations¶ represent another important means for overcoming
barriers, one that takes advantage of¶ Russian technological capabilities. Four case studies illustrate the
most prominent examples¶ of renewable energy technology transfer with Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltic States during¶ the period
1992±1996. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Russia has the tech capabilities for renewables
Martinot 99 (E. Martinot, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Russia: Perspectives
and Problems of International Technology Transfer and Investment. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of California at Berkeley, Renewable energy in Russia: markets,¶ development and
technology transfer 12 January 1999¶ Page 57
http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_RSER3.pdf//AR))
Russia has technological capabilities that parallel most developed countries.¶
Technological infrastructure, scienti®c and technical knowledge, engineering and¶ technical
skills, factories and equipment are all well developed. Substantial¶ 56 E. Martinot / Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 3 (1999) 49±75evidence indicates that Russian capabilities to develop
and produce most¶ renewable energy technologies are excellent. Capabilities to install, operate,
and¶ maintain these technologies are also highly developed. Nevertheless, there are two¶ persistent
technological shortfalls: (a) production technology lags behind Western¶ levels, especially in the degree of automation and quality
assurance; (b) there is¶ evidence to suggest that speci®c components and materials needed for renewable¶ energy technologies may
need to be imported (e.g., electronics, ®berglass, epoxy¶ resins, and other composite materials) because development of these
materials in¶ the Soviet economic system lagged behind the West. In particular, the lag in¶ computers, electronics, and modern
materials has been well documented [25].
Russia has effectively developed renewable energy use for those
without energy access
IFE No date(IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, is the largest global development
institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries.IFC Supports
Renewable Energy Projects in Russia’s Far East
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/cb_ho
me/news/feature_russiaadvisory_mar2013//AR)
IFC has signed an advisory services agreement with eastern Russia’s largest energy supplier to
develop renewable energy sources in isolated areas of the country, part of an effort to decrease
local dependence on imported fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions. ¶ IFC will help RAO Energy System
of East identify renewable energy opportunities in Russia’s Far East Federal District. Through its Russia Renewable Energy
Program, IFC will also support the joint-stock company as it reviews local regulations and identifies investment opportunities. ¶
“The agreement with IFC will help us intensify our work in renewable power generation,” said Alexey
Kaplun, Deputy CEO of RAO Energy System of East. “ With
the very high cost of fossil fuel in areas
with decentralized power supplies, it is important to develop renewable energy as
an environmentally friendly and cost-effective power source for many
communities in the Far East.Ӧ The agreement is part of IFC's efforts to support climate-conscious private
businesses in Europe and Central Asia. ¶ “Renewable energy is a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels in
many regions of Russia,” said Tomasz Telma, IFC Director for Europe and Central Asia. “Partnerships with strong local
players, like RAO Energy System of East, can help us bring affordable green power to people living
in isolated areas of the country.”¶ ¶ In fiscal year 2012, IFC invested $436 million in 22 companies to support climate-
friendly investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water provision across Europe and Central Asia. IFC oversees 37
advisory projects that aim to increase investment by providing advice to governments and businesses. IFC also works to reduce its
environmental footprint by making its regional facilities carbon-neutral.¶ ¶ Russia became a member and shareholder of IFC in 1993.
Since then, IFC has invested more than $10 billion in the country, including $3.2 billion in syndicated loans, and has been involved
in 270 projects across a variety of sectors. IFC’s investment portfolio in Russia stands at $2.3 billion, the fourth-largest country
exposure for IFC globally
Soft Power
Russia solves Latin American soft power
Astrada and Martín, 4/26 – (Marvin Astrada, PhD in International Relations from
Florida International University, taught International Relations courses at Florida International
University and Miami Dade College; Félix Martín, Associate Professor of International Relations
at Florida International University, PhD in International Relations from Columbia University;
“Russia and Latin America: From Nation-State to Society of States,” Palgrave Macmillan, Apr
26, 2013, page 28)//HO
Although Russia’s approach to the region may not be as fully developed as its policy and approach to Europe, Russia and Latin
America are pursuing agendas via intensive and extensive CCNs rooted in formal (legal)
agreements based on trade and investment in the broadest sense of the terms. According to the Russian
government, developing and enhancing CCNs with the region is a cornerstone of its long-term
foreign policy interest. Russian engagement is based on pragmatic, strategic, economic, and
non-military or security concerns (e.g., strengthening civilian travel and cultural exchange ties) that reflects the
“closeness” of Russian-Latin American “views on key issues in world politics and economics,” with
CCNs being key to facilitating “collective and concerted action with regard to the generally recognized norms of international law,
cultural and historical traditions." Of consequence for the region, in addition to the establishment of CCNs in energy, resource
exploration, space technology, trade, tourism, military-to-military partnerships, military ordinance, and Russia’s strategic vision—
unlike the previous Soviet strategic vision—is based on fostering a “multi-polar world” (in contrast to the bipolar structure that
dominated global affairs from 1945—1992). Russia’s cooperative partnerships with Latin America constitute
a “concrete step in laying the cornerstone of a new geopolitical order based on multilateral
values, a New World Order."4 Multipolarity, in large part, is based on societal notions of world order and
the use of CCNs to facilitate a multipolar world, since multipolarity bases international relations on non-coercive
engagement. Given the aim of Russia’s foreign policy, its approach to Latin America thus has significant
consequences for the region. In general, Russian strategy in Latin America has been viewed by some commentators as a
geopolitical approach directed against the US. with an economic component, rather than an economic approach to foreign policy
with strategic objectives . . . Moscow poses [a threat] to the region . . . from its weapons sales to Venezuela, which the latter is using
in support of insurgency in Colombia if not elsewhere. Yet, Russian engagement can also be viewed from a soft-
power perspective that entails additional non-militarysecurity objectives. In addition to military-security
threats, Russian engagement on the soft-power level may be viewed as part of a strategy to present
the region with an alternative major trading partner. Russia competes with China and the US, among other states
for Latin American markets. This undermines tacitly the “legitimacy" of having there being a single dominant power outside of Latin
America and the Caribbean. That is, [t]he US. Russian engagement via CCNs may be viewed as effectively
utilizing soft-power resources and networks to complement any military-security in the region
via diplomacy, trade, investment, security alliances, energy, and other types of cooperative
partnerships. Since 2000 Russia gradually restored its presence in the region, integrating itself into the region's affairs related
to commercial, legal, technological, political, cultural, and in resource development and exploitation activities.
Venezuela
Russia solves – previous Venezuela oil investment deals
El Universal 1/29/13 – (Spanish new agency “noticias Minuto a Minuto sobre México.”
“Venezuela signs new oil cooperation agreements with Russia”
http://www.eluniversal.com/economia/130129/venezuela-signs-new-oil-cooperationagreements-with-russia) DF
Rafael Ramírez, the
president of Venezuela's state-run oil company Pdvsa, said new energy
cooperation agreements have been entered into by Venezuelan and Russia.¶ After a meeting with
Russian state-run company Rosneft, two memoranda of understanding were signed. The first one aims at
the development of offshore oil projects in the Gulf of Paria (northeast Venezuela), whereas the second
one intends to develop offshore gas areas in Río Caribe and Mejillones, northeast.¶ An additional
instrument was initialed for the construction of joint ventures in the area of services. The
agreement includes a drills supply agreement across the country.
Agreements prove
PDVSA 12 (Petróleos de Venezuela (S.A.) “Russia and Venezuela sign eight new oil cooperation agreements” 9/28
http://www.pdvsa.com/index.php?tpl=interface.en/design/salaprensa/readnew.tpl.html&newsid_obj_id=10529&newsid_temas=1
) DF
The Russian Federation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela strengthened bonds of
friendship with the signing of eight agreements to develop the Carabobo area in the Faja del Orinoco
(FPO), and agreed the construction of a thermal power plant in Venezuela, which will process 300
megawatts (MW). The plant will work with petroleum coke from oil production process.¶ Hugo Chávez, the President of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, said from the Miraflores Palace, the official seat of the Executive Office in Venezuela that, the
establishment of Petrovictoria joint venture, the construction of oil infrastructure, projects to
boost gas development, and the creation of a drilling company which is also specialized in
rehabilitation of oil wells and rig repair are among the most important agreements.¶ “For the first
time in history, a Russian company extracts oil in the Americas. This is due to geopolitical factors, because the Yankee Empire had
an iron grip on this land. Now, there are companies from China, Russia and also from the United States,” said the
Venezuelan Head of State.¶ President Chávez talked about early production of oil in the first well of Miranda 1 multiple directional
drilling platform (macolla), run by Petromiranda, a joint venture, at the FPO. The estimated production capacity is 1,200 barrels per
day of crude oil. “Oil production should start next year; however, we have moved forward and we are producing in
Junín 6 Block with PetroMiranda. Here we
have the world’s biggest oil reserves while Russia has one of the
largest oil deposits in the world. We are two oil giants.”¶ “We are currently producing 3 million barrels of oil per day.
We should produce 4 million barrels in 2014 and 6 million barrels in 2019. It is possible because we
regained independence,” Chávez stated.¶ For its part, Rafael Ramírez, the People’s Minister of Petroleum and Mining
and president of State-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), highlighted that the new
bilateral agreements signed by Venezuela and Russia have a great scope. “We consider that the
cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has
reached a major breakthrough. It will provide a major boost to the projects we are currently
working on at the FPO”.¶ Ramírez said that “the Petrovictoria joint venture is an important agreement
that will allow us, Russian oil companies and PDVSA, to start production of 450,000 barrels of
oil, in addition to the 450,000 barrels of oil produced by Petromiranda."
Russia wants to invest Latin America Energy
Peña and Baradello 12 (By Federico F. Peña , a Senior Advisor at Vestar Capital
Partners practiced law, served in the Colorado State House of Representatives, served as Mayor
of the City and County of Denver, founded an investment advisory firm, and served in two
cabinet positions in the Clinton Administration as Secretary of the Department of Energy and
Secretary of the Department of Transportation, a leading global private equity firm and Federico
C. Baradello, ross-border private equity and venture capital experience and a background in
business, law, and public policy in the U.S., EU, and Latin America. Ph.D. from the London
School of Economics, an M.P.P. from Harvard University’s Kennedy School, a bachelor’s degree
from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, and this May completes his J.D. from the
University of California, Berkeley School of Law The Huffington It's Time to Tango: The Case for
a Reinvigorated Western Hemisphere Energy Strategy, The Huffington Post 4/14/2012
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/13223.htm)
Russia have
aggressively invested billions of dollars in Latin America's energy industries. For example, in early 2011,
While the U.S. has engaged in these multilateral and bilateral initiatives, countries including China and
Sinopec, China's largest oil refiner, formalized a $7 billion contract to buy a 40 percent stake in the Brazilian operations of Repsol,
Spain's largest energy company. Sinopec's main rival, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, is now preparing a major offer to
take over Repsol's stake in YPT, Argentina's main oil and gas company. Earlier this year, Russia and Venezuela
announced a joint venture between Venezuela's state-owned oil company Petroleos de
Venezuela and Russia's Gazprombank, a subsidiary of Russian energy giant Gazprom. As part of the deal,
Gazprombank took 40 percent ownership of a joint venture that seeks to "strengthen energy
operations" in oil-rich eastern Venezuela. These investments, among many others, demonstrate that these countries
view Latin America as an important region for their energy security. For the U.S. to protect its energy security in the Western
Hemisphere, it will need to devise a bold public-private strategy to leverage its massive energy consumption market, and its
proximate location, into a long term competitive advantage. In addition to deepening existing multilateral and bilateral initiatives,
the U.S. can strengthen and expand bilateral energy arrangements across Latin America. According to a 2007 United Nations study,
Latin America will require $1.3 trillion in energy sector investment by 2030. In a time of record profits for U.S. energy companies,
this presents an opportunity for the U.S. to leverage its ample supply of risk capital, its technological expertise, research institutions,
and national laboratories to develop strategic partnerships that invest in Latin America's energy potential. This new energy
investment can provide perhaps the most significant engine of growth and development in a
region that has continued to defy skeptics by prospering while much of the Western world has
faltered in recent years. Ultimately, any initiative for increased economic ties with Latin America will need to come from the
United States. While other issues, including poverty and inequality, public security, and migration will continue to be important
themes in U.S.-Latin America relations, America's immediate energy security imperatives motivate serious engagement today. The
Western Hemisphere's vast energy potential is on the dance floor. Does the U.S. care to tango? 4/14/2012
Russia solves – recent cooperation with Venezuela proves
**Specifically solves drug trafficking and energy development
Global Research, 10 – (RIA Novosti, citing Bolivian President Evo Morales and Vladmir
Putin; “Rapprochement between Russia and Latin America: Bolivian Ministers to Visit Moscow
in Late April,” 4 April 2010, http://www.globalresearch.ca/rapprochement-between-russia-andlatin-america-bolivian-ministers-to-visit-moscow-in-late-april/18487)//HO
A delegation of top-ranking Bolivian officials will visit Moscow on April 26 for talks on energy, military and
industrial cooperation, Bolivian President Evo Morales has said.¶ “The delegation will include heads of leading ministries, who are
to discuss and sign intergovernmental agreements with their Russian colleagues,” Morales said after
returning to La Paz from the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, where he met with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.¶ “We take as a
premise that Russia should return to Latin America, and that is why [we] are positively seeking to
expand diplomatic, economic, and trade relations with Moscow,” the Bolivian leader said.¶ After the meeting
with Putin, which was initiated by the Bolivian side, Morales told journalists that Moscow had agreed to lend Bolivia
$100 million to buy Russian helicopters to help tackle drug trafficking.¶ He also said
considerable progress had been made in enhancing bilateral cooperation in the energy sphere. ¶
The Russian prime minister arrived in Venezuela on Friday for talks on a range of issues including
military-technical cooperation and joint business projects primarily in the energy sphere. ¶ After
talks with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Putin said Russia was ready to grant Venezuela a $2.2bln loan, which Chavez had requested during his visit to Moscow last year.¶ The prime minister also said Russia would
continue deliveries of military equipment to Venezuela to help the Latin American country boost its national defense.
Russia is already cooperating with Venezuela and wants to increase
ties
Xinhua, 3/8 – (Xinhua News Service, citing Putin, Maduro; “Russia, Venezuela pledge to
continue strategic partnership,” 8 March 2013, http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/world/201303/08/content_16292655.htm)//HO
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Venezuelan Acting President Nicolas Maduro pledged to further bilateral
ties in a phone conversation, the Kremlin said Friday.¶ Extending his condolences and sympathy to the Venezuelan
leadership and people over the death of President Hugo Chavez, Putin said he was convinced that the mutually
beneficial cooperation and friendship between the two sides would develop further "in the
interest and for the benefit of the two peoples," according to a Kremlin press statement.¶ For his turn, Maduro
assured Putin of the continuity of bilateral strategic partnership, it said.¶ Earlier, the Kremlin said Igor
Sechin, head of Russia's oil giant Rosneft, would attend Chavez's state funeral on behalf of the Kremlin, due to "his active role in
bilateral cooperation in energy, banking and other spheres."
Russia has the technical expertise – nuclear power
Harding 10 – (Luke - award-winning foreign correspondent with the Guardian 15 October
2010“Russia and Venezuela strike nuclear power station deal”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/venezuela-nuclear-power-station-russia) DF
Russia has agreed to help Venezuela build its first nuclear power station in a move likely to raise
concerns in Washington about increasingly close cooperation between Moscow and Caracas.¶ President Dmitry Medvedev
announced the move at the end of a two-day visit to Moscow by Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez. The Venezuelan
economy is overwhelmingly reliant on oil and Chávez has said he wants nuclear power to
diversify energy supply.¶ Medvedev has implicitly acknowledged the deal is likely to be unpopular with the US but defended
Venezuela's right to seek access to peaceful nuclear technology. The station is likely to be built over the next 10-15
years. Its cost has not yet been revealed.¶ "An agreement has just been signed on co-operation in the atomic sphere. I don't know
who will shudder at this," Medvedev told a press conference after his talks with Chávez. "The president [of Venezuela] said there will
be countries in which this will provoke different emotions. But I want to say specially that our intentions are absolutely pure and
open." Russia wanted Venezuela to have a "full range of energy choices".¶ Chávez's visit is his ninth to
Moscow and the first stop on a 12-day European tour that includes visits to Belarus and, for the first time, Ukraine – now once again
within Moscow's sphere of influence. On previous occasions, Chávez has bought billions of dollars worth of military hardware from
Russia including submarines, helicopters and attack aircraft. Both leaders have reaffirmed their plans to continue military-technical
co-operation.¶ Viktor Semyonov, an economist at Moscow's Institute of Latin American Studies, said it was logical for
Venezuela to seek civilian nuclear technology since its economy was even more dependent on oil
than Russia's. Russia was already building a nuclear power station in Iran and holding talks with other Latin
American countries, including Brazil and Argentina.¶ "We are a country that exports nuclear technology around
the world. Venezuela's economy is 94 or even 95% made up of oil. Russia's is 65%, which is already
a lot. They (the Venezuelans) want to widen their sources of energy so they are less dependent on it,"
Semyonov said.¶ Speaking in Moscow on Thursday night, Chávez offered assurances that Venezuela had no
interest in building a nuclear weapon and only wanted peaceful nuclear technology. He described the
collapse of the Soviet Union as a "catastrophe" and launched a familiar attack on the United States, denigrating it as a "Yankee
empire".
Nuclear deal with Venezuela helps it achieve energy independence
Isachenkov 10 – (Vladimir – syndicated reporter 10/15/10 “Russia, Venezuela Reach Deal
On Country's First Nuclear Power Plant”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/russiavenezuela-reach-de_n_763960.html) DF
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reached a deal with Russia on Friday to build the South
American country's first nuclear plant, as questions arose why a nation rich in oil and gas would feel the need to
venture into atomic energy.¶ The two nations also signed other energy agreements. Russia has cultivated
close ties with Chavez's government to expand its global clout and counter U.S. influence in
Latin America.¶ The ITAR-Tass news agency said Russia plans to build two 1,200 megawatt nuclear
reactors at the Venezuelan plant. The cost of Friday's nuclear deal wasn't immediately announced.¶ The deal is likely
to raise concern in President Barack Obama's administration but continues a pattern of Russia pressing to export
its nuclear expertise.¶ Russia has just completed Iran's first nuclear power plant and recently reached new deals to build
nuclear reactors in China and Turkey. It's talking with Indian officials about building a dozen of nuclear reactors there and also
wants to build a nuclear reactor in the Czech Republic.¶ Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sought to pre-empt
questions about why Venezuela would need nuclear power by saying the deal would help
Caracas reduce its dependence on global market fluctuations.¶ "I don't know who will shudder at this,"
Medvedev said at a news conference after the signing. "The president (of Venezuela) said there will be nations that will have different
emotions about that, but I would like to emphasize that our intentions are absolutely pure and open: We want our partner Venezuela
to have a full range of energy possibilities."¶ Venezuela relies on hydroelectric power for most of its
electricity, and a severe drought last year and in early 2010 pushed the water level at country's
largest hydroelectric dam to perilous lows. The lower levels, combined with a lack of adequate upgrades to the
power grid, prompted rationing measures for a time, including rolling blackouts. Chavez says nuclear
power is part of his government's plans for diversifying its energy sources.¶ Medvedev said Russia sees nuclear
energy as a priority, despite its own hydrocarbon wealth, and described Russia's civilian nuclear technology as highly competitive
abroad.¶ "We are building many plants in different countries, so why wouldn't build such a plant in
our close partner, Venezuela?" he asked. "That will offer a certain degree of independence in case of a drop in world
energy prices."¶ Chavez said Venezuela wants to reduce its dependence on oil and gas.¶ "Strategic cooperation with Russia gives my
country a huge advantage," he said.¶ The Venezuelan leader has grown close to Russia, Iran and China while assailing U.S. policies,
and his rhetoric about the need for a "multi-polar world" has resonated in Moscow.¶ "Russia and Venezuela staunchly
support the creation of modern and fair world order, so that our future doesn't depend on the
will and the liking of just one country, its welfare and mood," Medvedev said in a veiled reference to the United States.
Russia solves Venezuelan Oil investment
Bierman and Kravchenko 3/6/13 – (Stephen reporter for Bloomberg News, Stepan - is a reporter for
Bloomberg News in Moscow. Mar 6, 2013 “Putin Sees Venezuela Oil Deals Moving Ahead After Chavez”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/putin-sees-venezuela-oil-deals-moving-ahead-after-chavez.html) DF
Russia expects to continue benefitting from economic ties with Venezuela via billions of dollars
in oil and weapons contracts after the death of Hugo Chavez, who led the South American country for 14 years.¶ “A
constructive, positive and mutually beneficial agenda will remain a constant for any
government, as it will from the Russian side,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said in the
Siberian city of Novosibirsk today.¶ Putin tapped OAO Rosneft Chief Executive Officer Igor Sechin to lead the Russian delegation to
Chavez’s funeral on March 8, Peskov said. Sergey Chemezov, head of Rustech, a government holding company that includes several
weapons manufacturers, and Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov will also attend, Peskov said.¶ Since Putin and Chavez
first met in 2001, Venezuela has become the most important overseas investment target for Russian
oil companies and is on track to become the largest export market for Russian arms after India by 2015, according to Viktor
Semyonov and Igor Korotchenko, analysts at the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade,
respectively.¶ Chavez was an “outstanding leader” and “close friend” of Russia, Putin said in a statement released by the Kremlin.
The Venezuelan leader was an “unconventional and strong person who looked to the future and always set the highest standard for
himself,” Putin said.¶ ‘Worries Overblown’¶ Rosneft and other Russian oil producers plan to invest $17.6
billion in Venezuela to quadruple their combined output in the country to 930,000 barrels a day
by 2019, Venezuela’s oil minister, Rafael Ramirez, said in January. That would be about equal to what Azerbaijan, the third-largest
supplier in the former Soviet Union, currently produces.¶ Under Venezuela’s constitution, an election must be held within 30 days of
the president’s death. Vice President Nicolas Maduro will be interim president until then, Foreign Minister Elias Jaua said in
Caracas. Maduro has led Venezuela since Chavez, who died of cancer, missed his Jan. 10 inauguration.
Solvency Differentials
Cuba
Cuba rejects the US and accepts aid from Russia – empirics
Lacey, 8 – (Mark, “Cuba Rejects American Offer of Hurricane Aid,” The New York Times, 6
September 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/world/americas/cubaforweb.html?_r=0)//HO
The Cuban government turned down Washington’s offer of hurricane assistance Saturday,
saying the best way for the United States to help Cuban victims of Hurricane Gustav would be
for it to lift the economic embargo on the island.¶ Cuba said it had its own experts on the job
while rejecting the State Department offer to send disaster specialists to assess the damages to
the western Pinar del Rio Province and the Island of Youth.¶ On Wednesday, Thomas A.
Shannon Jr., assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, told the Cuban
Interests Section in Washington that the United States would aid Cuban victims with $100,000
in immediate aid and more once the extent of the need was known. The aid, State Department
officials said, would be sent through non-governmental organizations and not to the Cuban
government.¶ But Cuba said that the trade embargo costs the island yearly damages that exceed
the billions of dollars in destruction that it attributes to Hurricane Gustav. Cuba has accepted
hurricane assistance from Russia, Venezuela and other allies. Such aid has frequently taken on a
political dimension between Cuba and the United States over the years.¶ “The only correct and
ethical action,” Cuba’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement, would be to end “the ruthless and
cruel economic, commercial and financial blockage imposed against our Motherland for almost
half a century.”
Venezuela will say no to the plan Russia key to solve
HISCOCK 13(GEOFF HISCOCK Russia deepens Venezuela oil ties
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/russia-deepens-venezuela-oilties/story-e6frg9df-1226577701328From: The Australian February 14, 2013//AR)
WHILE the United States forges ahead with its shale-led energy revolution, Russia is steadily building up its stake in the oil industry
of Venezuela, where anti-American rhetoric has been the hallmark of now-ailing leader Hugo Chavez’s 14-year rule.¶ Igor
Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned oil giant Rosneft, declared last month the oil-rich
South American country would be the main focus of Rosneft’s overseas investments.¶ Under a series
of accords signed during Sechin’s visit to Venezuela on January 29-30, Russia will commit to invest up to $US40
billion in jointly exploiting the Orinoco extra-heavy oil belt -- regarded as one of the world’s
largest hydrocarbon reserves -- with Venezuela’s state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA).¶ The US
Geological Survey estimated in 2010 that the Orinoco belt, a 600-km strip straddling the Orinoco River in the central-eastern part of
Venezuela, held 513 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. According to OPEC statistics, Venezuela’s proven reserves stand at
296 billion barrels, the largest in the world.¶ Digital Pass $1 for first 28 Days¶ It also has 5.5 trillion cubic metres of gas reserves,
ranking it No. 8 in gas behind Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, UAE and the US. ¶ Venezuela relies heavily on its oil
exports, which supply 95 per cent of its foreign earnings. Output, which was above 3 million barrels a day in the 1990s and early
2000s, has since fallen below that figure, although Venezuela’s stated goal is to reach 5 million barrels a day by 2015 and 6.5 million
by 2020, through development of the Orinoco belt. Venezuela’s heavy sour crude remains in demand with some refiners because it is
cheaper than light sweet crude.¶ Last week’s hefty devaluation of the bolivar currency by the government of Chavez – who has been
in hospital in Havana, Cuba since surgery in December – will ease the country's budget shortfall, but will also likely spur inflation
and further weaken the economy. Vice President Nicolas Maduro is running the country in the absence of Chavez. ¶ In the late 1990s,
Venezuela was supplying almost 2 million barrels a day of crude oil to the United States. But that figure has shrunk in recent years to
just over a million barrels a day, on the back of increased US shale oil and gas production, and increased imports from friendlier US
neighbour Canada.¶ Even so, Venezuela ranks as a top-four supplier, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia,
and about level with Mexico. That makes the United States Venezuela’s most important trading partner, despite Chavez
constantly railing at US “imperialism”.¶ The big change for Venezuela is the increased interest being shown
in the Orinoco belt by Russia, China and India.¶ European and Asian oil companies such as Eni of Italy, Repsol of Spain,
Petronas of Malaysia and Petrovietnam are active there, as is the US major Chevron, in partnership with Japanese companies.
PDVSA has a majority 60 per cent stake in all the various Orinoco blocks that have been licensed since 2009.¶ Rosneft, for
example, has committed to spend $US10 billion on its Venezuela projects over the next few
years, including the highly prospective Junin-6 and Carabobo-2 blocks in the Orinoco belt. Rosneft heads a Russian
consortium with 40 per cent of Junin-6, where the technically recoverable reserves of oil are close to 11 billion
barrels.¶ Late last month Rosneft said it would buy out one of its Russian partners, Surgutneftegas. It had earlier announced that it
would acquire another partner, TNK-BP, from current owners BP and the Russian AAR group in 2013, leaving Gazprom Neft and
LUKoil as the remaining Junin-6 investors. Junin-6 is expected to produce 450,000 barrels a day at peak output.¶ During his visit to
Caracas, Sechin met Oil and Mineral Resources Minister Rafael Ramírez, with the two sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation and
investment in Venezuela’s oil industry. They also said they would set up a joint drill-manufacturing operation.¶ Like Russia, China
also has been a heavy investor in Venezuela, with the China Development Bank committing to lend more than $40
billion since 2008 against crude oil sales. China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) is a 40-60 partner with PDVSA in the Junin-4
block, where projected production is 400,000 barrels a day. ¶ Alongside PDVSA’s 60 per cent stake, US oil major Chevron has 34 per
cent of the Carabobo-3 block – also a 400,000 barrel a day project -- with Japanese partners holding 5 per cent and Suelopetrol (an
independent Venezuelan oil producer) 1 per cent.¶ PDVSA’s 40-60 partner in Junin-5, a 240,000 barrel a day project, is Italy’s Eni,
while in the 400,000-bpd Carabobo-1 block the foreign partners with PDVA are Petronas (11 per cent), Repsol-YPF (11 per cent) and
an Indian consortium led by ONGC Videsh with 18 per cent. ONGC Videsh, the overseas arm of state-owned Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation of India, also has a stake in another Orinoco belt project, the San Cristobal oil field at Junin.¶ Indian private sector giant
Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), led by India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani, is another investor in Venezuelan oil and gas projects,
and is considered likely to commit a further $2 billion this year to more exploration and development of Orinoco oil belt prospects.¶
Last October Reliance signed a 15-year heavy crude oil supply contract and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with PDVSA to
further develop Venezuela’s heavy oil fields. Under the contract, PDVSA will supply between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels a day of
Venezuelan heavy crude to Reliance’s two refineries at Jamnagar in Gujarat state.¶ Reliance said at the time the 15-
year contract and MOU marked a “further strengthening of the long-standing relationship
between Reliance and PDVSA”.¶ But the failing health of Chavez has left some investors wary of over-committing until
the dynamics of any transition to a new Venezuelan leader are clear. ¶ Geoff Hiscock writes on international business and is the
author of “Earth Wars: The Battle for Global Resources,” published by John Wiley & Sons.
Mexico
Mexico has rejected US aid in the past
AP, 8 – (Associated Press, “Mexico rejects conditions on U.S. aid for drug war,” 3 June 2008,
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mexico-rejects-conditions-on-U-S-aid-fordrug-war-1755218.php)//HO
The Mexican government warned Monday it would not accept conditions that the U.S. Congress
has imposed on an aid package to combat drug trafficking.¶ The Merida Initiative would provide $1.4 billion
over several years to help Mexico, Central America, the Dominican Republic and Haiti combat drug trafficking. ¶ But the U.S.
House and Senate have imposed several conditions on the aid, including guarantees of civilian
investigations into human rights abuses by the Mexican military.¶ Interior Secretary Juan Camilo
Mourino said the conditions were "counterproductive and profoundly contrary to the object and
spirit" of the initiative announced by U.S. and Mexican officials last year.¶ "The initiatives approved
by both chambers of the U.S. Congress incorporate some aspects that, in their current versions, are
unacceptable for our country," Mourino said.¶ The House and Senate approved different amounts for the first installment
of the aid, and the two versions must be reconciled. Both bills fell well short of the $500 million sought by the Bush administration.¶
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has earned strong support from Washington for his crackdown against drug cartels, carried out
by more than 25,000 troops nationwide.¶ Drug violence has surged as cartels fight back with increasingly brazen attacks against
security forces. Last week, a senior police officer appealed for more powerful weapons after seven federal officers were killed in a
shootout with members of the Sinaloa cartel.
Venezuela
Venezuela says no to aff – resents interference and doesn’t trust US
leadership
Fernandez, 3/22 – (Yusef, “Venezuela Rejects U.S. Interference,” Almanar News, 22
March 2013,
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=1&cid=18&frid=18&eid=86989)//H
O
Shortly after Chavez passed away, the Venezuelan government expelled the air force attaché of the
US embassy in Caracas and his deputy, claiming that they had made “inappropriate contacts”
with Venezuelan military officers in order to try to destabilize the country. The United States
retaliated by expelling the second secretary at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington and another
diplomat. Finally, the Venezuelan government has ordered an investigation to know whether
Chavez´s cancer was induced by the enemies of his Bolivarian revolution, especially the US
administration.¶ For his part, Acting President Nicolas Maduro Maduro has promised to follow Chavez´s path
and to confront “the Empire´s attempts to prevent Venezuela and Latin America´s
independence from consolidating”. He recently announced that “some people in the Pentagon
and the CIA” were conspiring as the election approaches in the South American country. “I am telling the
absolute truth,” Maduro said, “because we have the testimonies and direct, first-hand information.”¶ He accused explicitly a
group of former US officials -including Roger Noriega, Otto Reich and John Negroponte - of working to
destabilize Venezuela. Shortly after, Maduro added that Venezuela had detected a plot from those
same circles to kill his opponent in the election Henrique Capriles Randoski. The implication was that the attack on
the right-wing candidate would be a provocation in order to create a chaos in the country. Maduro did not give more details.¶ Otto
Reich was ambassador in Venezuela from 1986 to 1989 and Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the administration
of George W. Bush. He was deeply involved in the 2002 anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela. He was a close friend to right-wing
Venezuelan businessman and lawyer Robert Carmona-Borjas, who fled from the Latin American country shortly after the failure of
the coup in which he was also heavily involved.¶ A second individual denounced by Maduro was Robert Noriega, US permanent
representative to the Organization of American States, Noriega also supported the 2002 failed coup. After the Honduran military
coup in 2009, Noriega became a lobbyist for the new regime. The third individual, John Negroponte, was Director of National
Intelligence and was actively involved in the contra war against the Sandinist Nicaragua in the 1980s. It is worth pointing out that
these three individuals have written numerous articles in which they called on the US administration to take a tough line against
Venezuela.¶ All these events show that the Obama Administration continues to develop the same
failed Cold War policies towards Latin America that George W. Bush put into practice. Washington
keeps militarizing much of the continent and spending enormous amounts of cash in order to set up obedient
governments, train armies and militias, deploy troops and build new military bases in countries such as Guatemala, Panama,
Belize, Honduras or the Dominican Republic.
Anti-US rhetoric and recent Russia cooperation means Venezuela
prefers the counterplan
Hiscock, 13 – (Geoff, “Russia deepens Venezuela oil ties,” The Australian, Business with the
Wall Street Journal, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/russiadeepens-venezuela-oil-ties/story-e6frg9df-1226577701328)//HO
WHILE the United States forges ahead with its shale-led energy revolution, Russia is steadily building
up its stake in the oil industry of Venezuela, where anti-American rhetoric has been the
hallmark of now-ailing leader Hugo Chavez’s 14-year rule.¶ Igor Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned oil giant Rosneft,
declared last month the oil-rich South American country would be the main focus of Rosneft’s
overseas investments.¶ Under a series of accords signed during Sechin’s visit to Venezuela on January 29-30, Russia will
commit to invest up to $US40 billion in jointly exploiting the Orinoco extra-heavy oil belt -regarded as one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves -- with Venezuela’s state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA
(PDVSA).¶ The US Geological Survey estimated in 2010 that the Orinoco belt, a 600-km strip straddling the Orinoco River in the
central-eastern part of Venezuela, held 513 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. According to OPEC statistics, Venezuela’s
proven reserves stand at 296 billion barrels, the largest in the world.¶ It also has 5.5 trillion cubic metres of gas reserves, ranking it
No. 8 in gas behind Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, UAE and the US.¶ Venezuela relies heavily on its oil exports,
which supply 95 per cent of its foreign earnings. Output, which was above 3 million barrels a day in the 1990s and early 2000s, has
since fallen below that figure, although Venezuela’s stated goal is to reach 5 million barrels a day by 2015 and 6.5 million by 2020,
through development of the Orinoco belt. Venezuela’s heavy sour crude remains in demand with some refiners because it is cheaper
than light sweet crude.¶ Last week’s hefty devaluation of the bolivar currency by the government of Chavez – who has been in
hospital in Havana, Cuba since surgery in December – will ease the country's budget shortfall, but will also likely spur inflation and
further weaken the economy. Vice President Nicolas Maduro is running the country in the absence of Chavez. ¶ In the late
1990s, Venezuela was supplying almost 2 million barrels a day of crude oil to the United States.
But that figure has shrunk in recent years to just over a million barrels a day, on the back of increased US
shale oil and gas production, and increased imports from friendlier US neighbour Canada.¶ Even so, Venezuela
ranks as a top-four supplier, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia, and about level with Mexico. That makes the United States
Venezuela’s most important trading partner, despite Chavez constantly railing at US “imperialism”.¶ The big
change for Venezuela is the increased interest being shown in the Orinoco belt by Russia, China and
India.¶ European and Asian oil companies such as Eni of Italy, Repsol of Spain, Petronas of Malaysia and Petrovietnam are active
there, as is the US major Chevron, in partnership with Japanese companies. PDVSA has a majority 60 per cent stake in all the
various Orinoco blocks that have been licensed since 2009.¶ Rosneft, for example, has committed to spend $US10
billion on its Venezuela projects over the next few years, including the highly prospective Junin-6 and
Carabobo-2 blocks in the Orinoco belt. Rosneft heads a Russian consortium with 40 per cent of Junin-6, where the technically
recoverable reserves of oil are close to 11 billion barrels.¶
Relations
High Now
Russia’s relations with Latin America are high now
PanARMENIAN, 13 – (PanARMENIAN.net, citing Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev; “Chavez helped Russia’s cooperation with Latin
America: Lavrov,” 9 March 2013, http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/149126/)//HO
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has praised late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for helping
Moscow to reach a new level of partnership with Latin American countries. “What has happened in the
past years in terms of [Russia’s] rapprochement with these countries – we have significantly enhanced our relations
with practically all the Latin and Caribbean states – fairly reflects [policies] that Hugo Chavez promoted,” Lavrov
said in an interview with Rossiya 1 channel, according to RIA Novosti. Lavrov said Russia is interested in expanding
cooperation with Latin American countries, adding that most regional leaders have similar views on
addressing global issues. Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez died on March 5 at the age of 58 after an almost two-year battle
with cancer. Ties between Russia and Venezuela flourished under Chavez, whose 14-year-rule
brought Moscow a number of lucrative arms deals. The Russian foreign minister said he hopes
this tendency in relations with Latin American countries will remain despite the death of the
prominent Venezuelan leader. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who went on a brief tour of Latin America in
February, called the region an area of Russia’s “strategic interest” and expressed hope that fullscale cooperation between Russia and Latin American countries will develop. Russia is maintaining
relations with Latin American countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Ecuador.
Sphere of Influence
Uniqueness – LA
Russia’s influence in Latin America is growing now
Blank, 9 – (Stephen J., Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College; “Russia in Latin America: Geopolitical Games in the US's
Neighborhood,” Russia/NIS Center, April 2009,
www.ifri.org/downloads/ifriblankrussiaandlatinamericaengapril09.pdf)//HO
However, Russia’s quest for influence in Latin America began in¶ 1997 and its goals have been
remarkably consistent. Russia started seeing¶ Latin America as an area of increasing global
economic importance in 2003¶ and began selling weapons there in 2004 so current policy represents the¶
continuation and expansion of an earlier base, not a new initiative.3 What¶ had changed, at least
until the current global economic crisis beginning in¶ 2008, was Moscow’s capability to implement its policies and its steadily¶
growing anti-Americanism. Because the economic crisis has reduced¶ Russia’s and Latin American states’ capabilities for joint
action, most¶ notably in Venezuela’s case, the vigor of Russia’s thrust into Latin America ¶ will probably diminish accordingly.
Russia’s ability to obtain meaningful¶ influence and a truly strategic position in Latin America
stems from its¶ capacity for large-scale foreign policy initiatives. Therefore, 2009 should¶ see a retrenchment
from 2008’s more grandiose perspectives, but clearly¶ those perspectives remain in place and will return if Russian capacities for¶
action recover. The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, implicitly acknowledged¶ this when he said that in 2009, it will be
necessary “to ensure a worthy¶ place for Russia in international relations,” followed by arguing that,
“today¶ there is no more important task than to overcome the consequences of the¶ global financial crisis.”4 Nonetheless, during his
tour of the region in late¶ 2008, he said that Russia was only beginning to upgrade its ties with Latin¶
America, which he and other officials recognize as a growing international¶ actor.5 Medvedev even
called relations with Latin American countries¶ privileged relations just like Russia’s relations with the countries of the¶ Community
of Independent States (CIS).6
Uniqueness – Cuba
The embargo is allowing Russia to expand economic ties in the region
Vakulenko 12 (Darya Vakulenko, research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
8-29-12, “Economic Cold War: Russia And US Battle For Influence In Western Hemisphere –
Analysis,” http://www.eurasiareview.com/29082012-economic-cold-war-russia-and-us-battlefor-influence-in-western-hemisphere-analysis/) gz
The current economic competition between the Russian Federation and the United States in the
Western Hemisphere bears striking similarity to the political antagonism prevalent during the
Cold War. This deep seated rivalry still influences world affairs, as the United Nations Security
Council cannot enact any major decision without an agreement between those two powers.
However, a pragmatic view of the world economy plays a greater role now in the determination
of Russia’s priorities and strategies as it begins to catch up with the U.S. in its exposure to Latin
American economic interests.¶ As of late, the Russian Federation has gained economic ground
over the United States in various parts of the Latin American region. For example, Washington’s
embargo on Cuba gives Russia the opportunity to fill in the economic hollows left by the
“imperialist neighbor.” While Washington engages in very limited trade with its ancient foe,
Russia-Cuban links have been growing stronger with each passing year. Recently, the Russian
oil company Zarubezhneft announced its plan to invest $100 million USD in Cuba by 2025.
Considering that deposits of Cuban oil are estimated to reach 20 billion barrels, the Russians’
investment plan appears as if it will bring considerable profits in the near future to both
sides.[1]¶ The recent activity in Ecuador presents another aspect of Russia’s growing economic
attraction to Latin America. At the end of July 2012, the Ecuadorian government signed the
“memorandum of understanding” with Gazprom, Russia’s largest oil and gas company. The
memorandum will launch the exploration of the natural-gas field in the southern coastal areas
of Ecuador.[2] This “Bolivarian country” (in reference to the state’s left-leaning state ideology)
will gain ample royalties in conjunction with the development of its energy sector, while Russia
will secure market access into Ecuador via their already impressive natural gas reserves.
Notably, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa continues to advocate continental leadership
independent of U.S. influence, thereby welcoming Russian influence.¶ Gazprom, together with
another oil company, Rosneft, are clearly linked to Russian foreign policy. The Russian
government owns 50.002 percent of shares in Gazprom and 75 percent in Rosneft thus
President of Russia, Putin, oversees strategies of both companies.[3] Gazprom is the world’s
largest producer of natural gas and the second largest producer of oil in the world with 9.7
million barrels per day, just behind Saudi Aramco. Rosneft is the world’s 15th largest oil and gas
producer.[3] The wielding of such economic weight serves as a powerful foreign relations force
as Russia looks to enter new global markets, firming up the already inextricable relationship
between politics and economics.¶ The Cuban and Ecuadorian examples demonstrate how the
United States’ continuing ideologically-based economic ties with Latin America could invite
other large world players to represent investment portfolios to the region. The United States
clearly does not take full advantage of its geographical proximity to Latin America, even as
Russia pushes for greater markets throughout that region. At the time of the Cold War,
bipolarity was intensified by a constant ideological race to include as many Third World
countries under either Soviet Union or or the U.S. umbrella. Today the two compete over
markets and trade partners throughout Latin America. In this battle Russia is clearly winning,
because of its firm economic pragmatism.¶ One observes the phenomenon of increasing Russian
influence in Latin America in the development a solid relationship between ALBA (Bolivarian
Alliance for the Americas) and Moscow. Although Russia is not technically allied with ALBA—
which is known for its left-wing ideology—Moscow is not wasting the opportunity to support
anti-Western declarations espoused by the Bolivarian states. Former Russian President,
Medvedev, has declared significant perspectives for cooperation, especially in economic
development, highlighting the pragmatic nature that Russian economic policy has adopted over
the last 20 years.[4]¶ Possible future nationalization of Russian assets by Latin American
governments and political disagreements within the region have yet to deter Russia from
vigorously embracing the emerging market. The Russian Federation has proven capable of
negotiating with various leftist governments and has worked around the U.S. embargo against
Cuba. The country appears to prioritize potential returns on its investments over ideology and
public opinion by investing in controversial industries including arms and pipelines.¶ The
economic potential of some countries could have a lasting impact on how we view the world
politically. The words investment, profit and trade have been added to the everyday vocabulary
of politicians. However, Russian politicians are ready to apply those words in Spanish more
often than other counterparts.
Uniqueness – Venezuela
Russia is displacing the US in Venezuela – that’s key to Venezuelan
stability and influence
SELA 9 (Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe or the Latin American and
Caribbean Economic System, July 2009, “Economic relations between the Russian Federation
and Latin America and the Caribbean: Current situation and prospects,”
http://www.sela.org/attach/258/EDOCS/SRed/2009/07/T023600003569-0Economic_relations_-_Russian_Federation_and_LAC.pdf) gz
Lately, relations between Russia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are developing ¶ in a very
dynamic fashion. Top level contacts between both parties are frequent and ¶ strategic cooperation has
constantly deepened. In 2008, the presidents of the two ¶ countries made reciprocal visits, the parties
reached numerous cooperation agreements ¶ and defined the basic framework for the integral
development of bilateral relations. ¶ Russia considers Venezuela as a strategic partner, very rich in
natural resources and with ¶ great opportunities in particular, regarding the exploitation of
petroleum, gas, aluminium ¶ and gold reservoirs, as well as the construction of railroads,
underground transportation ¶ networks, hydraulic works and the transfer of modern technology.
¶ On the other hand, through the strengthening of its cooperation with Russia, China, Iran, ¶
India and other countries, Venezuela intends to materialize its energy pluralization¶ strategy to reduce
its dependence on the U.S. market. Cooperation with Russia could ¶ increase its capacity to face the
current financial crisis, guarantee national security and ¶ reinforce its influence in the region. Besides, the
two countries need each other mutually ¶ in the areas of energy cooperation and arms.
Russian –Venezuelan Relations high
RT 7-2-13 – (Russian Times “‘Inherited love’: Russia - Venezuela economic ties to remain
tight, mutual investment plans estimated at $20 bn” http://rt.com/business/russia-venezuelaenergy-finance-545/) DF
The meeting of President Vladimir Putin and Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro proved that business
relations between Russia and Venezuela will remain warm. Investment plans vary from joint
energy projects to a Russian-Venezuelan bank.¶ “Our trade turnover has reached a new level of $2 billion. Our
companies have vast investment plans valued at over $20 billion. Each of our plans is being implemented successfully,” said
President Putin about negotiations with Nicolas Maduro in the Kremlin on Tuesday.¶ A record high in trade was mostly
due to Russian export growth of 211.4%. "This is the result of several large contracts concerning military and
industrial hardware supplies," said President Putin.¶ Putin praised Maduro for taking up the baton from his
predecessor Hugo Chavez, “one of the most brilliant leaders of Latin America”. “I am very glad to note that you … continue
the development of relations between Russia and Venezuela,” he added. Maduro responded by saying he had
“inherited” a great love for Russia.¶ “President Chavez always had a great respect and love
towards Russia. And we inherited this love for Russia. And we came here to confirm our wish to
strengthen and broaden our strategic alliance with Russia,” Maduro replied.¶ Joint energy projects
are traditionally high on the agenda. Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft and Venezuelan
national company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) have signed a cooperation agreement for
offshore projects. On top of that, the Venezuelan energy giant signed an agreement to build a combined heat and power plant
in Venezuela that runs on petroleum coke.¶ PDVSA has a 60% interest in the Petrozamora joint venture (JV) and Gazprombank
Latin America Ventures B.V. (GPB Global Resources Group) - 40%. The JV is developing the Lagunillas Tierra and Bachaquero
Tierra fields, discovered in 1926 and 1938 respectively, in the state of Zulia near Lake Maracaibo. The project to boost oil recovery at
the fields was approved by the parliaments of both countries in February 2012. The agreement is for 25 years.¶ Russia’s third
largest bank by assets Gazprombank agreed with PDVSA on $1 billion to finance a scheme for
extraction in the South American country, said deputy chief at Gazprombank Alexandr Muranov. This comes under
the framework of Gazprombank-PDVSA joint venture Petrozamora – an investment outfit that is already producing.
Uniqueness – Mexico
Russia –Mexico relations high now
SRE 12 – (Secretaria de relaciones exteriors “NINTH MEETING FOR BILATERAL
POLITICAL CONSULTATIONS BETWEEN MEXICO AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION”
http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1945:ninthmeeting-for-bilateral-political-consultations-between-mexico-and-the-russianfederation&catid=27:archives&Itemid=64) DF
The
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, Carlos de Icaza, and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia,
met today in St. Petersburg on the sidelines of the G20 Sherpas meeting for the
9th meeting of bilateral political consultations between Mexico and Russia.¶ ¶ Both sides
welcomed the excellent state of the political relationship and agreed to strengthen bilateral
cooperation in order to form a strategic relationship that better utilizes the economic potential of both countries.¶
¶ Undersecretary de Icaza reiterated President Peña Nieto’s appreciation for being invited to the G20
Leaders Summit that will be held in St. Petersburg in September. He also repeated President Peña
Nieto’s invitation to Vladimir Putin to visit Mexico in the near future.¶ ¶ Regarding trade, the two officials
Sergey A. Ryabkov,
discussed Russia’s decision to suspend importation of meat products from Mexico and the anti-dumping measures Mexico applies to
Russian steel. They agreed that these issues are disrupting trade between the two countries, and
they agreed to make progress with the technical negotiations being conducted by experts from
both countries in order to find ways to resolve the situation.¶ ¶ The two parties welcomed the increase in
Russian tourism to Mexico, helped in large part by the direct flights that now exist between both countries. They also talked about
the study conducted by the Mexico Tourism Board (CPTM) on opening an office in Moscow in 2013 or 2014, and the possibility of
also opening a ProMéxico office there.¶ ¶ Regarding legal issues, they committed to making progress with new
methods of cooperation to enhance the existing legal framework, particularly with regard to
peaceful uses of nuclear energy, shipping and an extradition treaty. The Russians stressed their special
interest in signing an agreement to exempt ordinary passports from needing visas, an issue currently being studied in Mexico.¶
Multipolarity Good NB
The counterplan is key to balanced multipolarity and US
retrenchment
Lukyanov, 10 – (Fyodor, Editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, Chairman of
Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy; “Rethinking Russia : Russian
Dilemmas in a Multipolar World,” Columbia Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, No. 2,
Spring/Summer 2010, page 19-32, http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russian-dilemmas-multipolarworld)//HO
Verhofstadt’s analysis, it could be argued, amounts to a description of how regional poles will constitute a new type
of structure for the world system. The EU and China are the most pronounced poles of this kind; attempts to form
such conglomerations have also been made in Latin America (through various regional integration projects),
Africa, and the Gulf area. Potentially, Russia may become such a center, although everything depends on
its own ability to develop and become a focus of economic growth. From the point of view of
global stability, Russia’s development as a pole may be considered a necessity.¶ Interaction
between such poles will not be conflict-free, as competition for resources and markets persists but the degree of
interdependence among states is so great that it can reduce the negative effect of this competition. In any case, it is easier to
agree on principles of interaction among large communities than among a huge number of
different state and non-state actors.¶ The only country that does not fit into such a system is the
United States. Unlike other actual or potential centers of gravity, America will not content itself
with the role of a regional player because it has an exceptionally globalized position and is not
likely to give up its leadership ambitions. Moreover, American politicians of all views are
unanimous that the United States sees itself as the primary world leader, although there are
heated debates about how to maintain this leadership. In any case, America views multipolarity as an
encroachment on its unique status, preferring to speak about multilateral approaches, which imply the mobilization of the
international community’s efforts under the banner of American leadership.¶ Meanwhile, as scholars at the University of California,
Berkeley, point out,¶ While connectivity for the globe as a whole has increased in the last twenty years, it is increasing at a much
faster rate among countries outside the Western bloc. The World Without the West is becoming preferentially
and densely interconnected. This creates the foundation for the development of a new, parallel
international system, with its own distinctive set of rules, institutions, ways of doing things–and currencies of power.8¶ At
the time of the economic crisis, experts have noted an upsurge in Chinese trade with South-East Asia and the ‘newly-rising
economies’ of Brazil, Africa and India. Although Chinese trade with these places has historically been limited, it has grown so fast in
the past five years that a robust performance in 2010 may be enough to offset any moderate weakness in China’s trade with the
[United States].9¶ The United States, however, often takes the initiative for multilateral cooperation
even during crises that are not viewed as a threat directed against the United States. U.S. researchers
analyzing the international situation at the beginning of the 21st century write about the need to integrate the growing world powers,
above all China, into the existing system of American-led hegemony, providing these powers with possibilities for further
development without challenging U.S. leadership of this system. Proponents of this approach to integration believe it
would give partner countries (including India, Brazil, China, and Russia) certain rights to influence the
formulation of the rules of the game and, at the same time, would bind them into maintaining its stability.10¶
China’s behavior, however, does not conform with this logic. Beijing does not demand any rights to influence the existing system,
nor does it want to assume any obligations. China skillfully uses the existing world mechanisms to achieve its own goals of ensuring
access to sources of raw materials and markets for its goods, thereby creating the most favorable conditions for self-development.
China’s foreign policy exhibits no global ambitions or messianic ideological plans, limiting itself to self-cultivation. At the same time,
China does influence the global system, not because of any quota promised to it because of its status as a responsible stakeholder but
through the continued growth of its economic capabilities.11 Such an approach puzzles many observers, as China demands relatively
little for itself, contrary to the behavior of most fast-growing powers; it refuses, however, to submit to demands or proposals of other
states’.¶ Looking at the problem of world order from the perspective of countries who are capable
of playing the role of a regional pole—thus reducing the United States’ monopoly of power—the
conclusion would be the opposite. The problem is not how to integrate rising powers into the existing system but rather
how to integrate the founder and leader of the outgoing system, the United States, into the emerging multipolar system. In an ideal
situation, the United States could play a very positive role by serving as an umbrella for a complex and unstable multipolar model,
rectifying imbalances and helping to resolve conflicts between various elements of the system. In practice, the
performance of this function leads to the demand for special rights and privileges and
recognition of the leading role of the United States, which contradicts the very idea of a
multipolar order.12¶ But if the recognition of American leadership by all other states is unlikely, everything will depend on the
behavior of the United States: whether it will try to establish its position by force, or instead demonstrate its readiness to become the
first among equals. After all, periods of isolationism in U.S. history have generally been longer than periods of transcontinental and
global domination.¶ This is how the international system is seen by Moscow, where the idea of
multipolarity has been discussed since the mid-1990s. How does such a view of the world affect Russia’s foreign
policy?¶ Russia’s foreign policy can be roughly divided into two unequal periods. The first one, from the Soviet Union’s break-up to
around 2007, was characterized by a desire to integrate into the existing international institutions and receive a worthy place at the
tables where decisions are made. In the 1990s, especially in the first half of the decade, Moscow was ready to assume a subordinate
status. Later, however, it began to demand an equal say at the table. Nevertheless, Russia’s goals remained unchanged both under
Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. Throughout those years, Russia’s priorities included: inclusion into the Council of Europe, the
Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);
the reformation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) with a view of making it more effective under
the new conditions; and the establishment of institutional, and increasingly closer, ties with the European Union. “President
Vladimir Putin made a decisive breakthrough toward Russia’s integration into the global economy and politics. The view prevailed in
Russia then that the country could adapt to the new global rules without hurting its national interests and even that it could
implement them more fully.”13 Even the issue of NATO membership for Russia was discussed with western politicians, although it
seems not to have been taken seriously.¶ The second period began with Putin’s Munich speech in February 2007, which was largely
an expression of the Kremlin’s profound disillusionment with the results of its previous policy. Since then, Moscow’s public
pronouncements have not focused on integration as a goal; instead, Russia has enhanced its own capabilities and increased its
strength. This change stemmed from the conviction that western countries, especially the United States, were not interested in
recognizing Russia as an equal partner, and that any steps by Moscow to meet the West halfway would be used to gain unilateral
advantages. The subordinate integration of post-communist central and eastern European countries into the western community
was unacceptable to Russia because objectively it remained a great power and felt a continued responsibility for maintaining
strategic stability in Eurasia.¶ But there was also a more general reason for Russia’s reversal: since the early 2000s, the decline of the
former institutional design of the international system and the inability to create a new one became increasingly obvious.¶ “One
could see more and more clearly that not a single country by itself or a political bloc can aspire
to absolutely dominate or efficiently govern the international system. This conclusion unavoidably
stimulates other members of the international system—irrespective of their internal structure or political orientation—to beef up
their relative strength and to employ all possible instruments and resources. In other words, a growth of general anarchy makes
countries more aggressive and competitive.”14¶ After Dmitry Medvedev replaced Putin as the president of Russia, the renunciation
of the desire to integrate into the global system became even more definite, despite some softening of rhetoric regarding relations
with the West. For example, Medvedev’s idea for a European security treaty, proposed shortly after he took the presidency, differs
fundamentally from previously discussed formats. This is not an integration initiative; rather, it is a proposal to sign a traditional
multilateral pact on security principles. The transformation of Russia’s approach to WTO membership is even more indicative. The
WTO is now a lesser priority for Moscow as there has recently emerged a new element in accession negotiations. The problem is not
whether Russia would benefit from joining the WTO, which has been discussed for years, but whether the organization itself has any
prospects for the future. A source at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Secretariat quoted Medvedev at the November
2009 APEC summit stating that it was no problem for Russia to liberalize trade. Now that the Doha Round negotiations have stalled,
however, Moscow will rethink once more whether it should join the WTO.15¶ The most characteristic demonstration of the new
approach was the June 2009 decision to halt negotiations on joining the WTO and to focus instead on a joint bid through a customs
union with Kazakhstan and Belarus. The decision caused mixed reactions in Russia and the rest of the world. In addition, the final
format of the proposed integration was never made clear. The political meaning of such a step was clear from the very beginning. It
was an attempt to take practical steps to create a pole of its own, which could compete with neighboring poles: a Europe of
concentric circles and China, each of which actively spreads its influence to the post-Soviet space.¶ Although Russia has not
acquired a new identity on the world stage since the break up of the Soviet Union, it is obvious
that Moscow no longer seeks a global role in the way the USSR did before and as the United States is
pursuing now. Moscow is now convinced that the future world order will be based on competitive
interactions of principal centers of power and not on any one power’s domination. With this belief in future power
structures, Russia has limited its immediate interests to Eurasia. Russia would like to use its assets in remote
parts of the world, such as Latin America and Africa, to strengthen its positions in the Eurasian
space. For example, it appears that Moscow’s interest in cooperation with non-conformist states of Latin
America—Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador—grew markedly as the United States increased its
presence in the post-Soviet space. One expert has described the present state of Russian-U.S. relations as “traveling in
different boats.” “On the whole, the new quality of Russian-U.S. relations is another essential element of the multipolar picture of
the world. A confrontational model stems from the bipolar past. Partnerships and alliances are elements of either ‘friendly
bipolarity,’ which never materialized, or of a unipolar world under U.S. leadership, which also failed to produce results.”16 ¶ The
paradox of the relationship between Russia and the United States is that both parties see each
other as a declining power. America does not believe in the future of Russia, a country with a diminishing population, a
degrading infrastructure, and a lopsided economy which is sandwiched between economic growth centers. Vice President Joe Biden
openly said as much last year.17 Russia’s claim to the role of an independent pole is not taken seriously, especially amid the growth
of “real” giants like China.¶ Russia, for its part, is discovering ever-new signs that the era of U.S.
domination is waning. A multipolar world, which for a long time seemed to be an abstract slogan of America’s competitors in
Paris, Beijing, or Moscow has, in the 21st century, begun to turn into reality. Former U.S. President George W. Bush’s trigger-happy
policy catalyzed the process but did not cause it. Other centers and groups of influence are rising and Russia is pondering what
should take priority in addressing international problems: relations with the United States or with its opponents? These views
that Russia and the United States hold of each other do not so much reflect the present situation
as they define the vector of expectations; the policies enacted on their basis may turn out to be
similar.
Russia influence in Latin America key to transfer to a multi polar
world
Blank 9(Stephen Blank, served as the Strategic Studies Institute’s expert on the Soviet bloc
and the post-Soviet world since 1989. Prior to that he was Associate Professor of Soviet Studies
at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama; and taught at the University of Texas, San Antonio; and at the University of California,
Riverside,“Russia in Latin America Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood” p. 8-9, April
2009, BG)
Nevertheless, Russia’s activities in the region cannot be ignored. Prime¶ Minister Putin and
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have said that “Latin¶ America is becoming a noticeable link in
the chain of the multipolar world¶ that is forming.”"‘ And while neither Russia nor Venezuela will
challenge¶ the US militarily, e.g. with Russian bases in Cuba, their individual and collective goals
entail the substantial worsening of East-West relations and of the acute instabilities already
existing on the continent.” Moscow’s purposes in engaging Latin America economically and
diplomatically have developed from the concept formulated by Foreign Minister Yevgeny
Primakov in 1997 when he visited Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica. At that time,
Primakov stated that as a great power Russia should naturally have ties with all continents and
all regions in the world.” Continuing this policy, then President Putin wrote in a 2001telegram to
participants in a conference on Latin America that political dialogue and economic links with
the region were important and would be mutually beneficial. He cited the establishment of links
in science, education, and culture as particular areas of focus." Finally in 2006 Lavrov wrote
that: “In recent years the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean Basin (LACB) occupy an
increasingly noticeable place in the system of contemporary international relations. Our
contacts with them are an important component of the international efforts of Russia in tackling
the problems common to the entire world community.”'8 Thus the quest for great power status
vis-a-vis Washington and for a multipolar world that constrains American ability to upset
Moscow’s concept of global and regional strategic stability drives Russian policy. To those ends
Russia uses areas of comparative economic advantage (energy, arms sales, space launches, sales
of nuclear reactors) to leverage political support for Russian positions against American
interests. Russian interest in recovering or gaining positions in Latin America preceded the
more recent notion that it will show the US that if it intervenes in the CIS Moscow can
reciprocate in Latin America. That idea has only become possible by virtue of Russia’s recovery
in 2000-08 and the corresponding and coinciding decline of US power and prestige due to the
Bush Administration’s disastrous policies. The current economic crisis plus new policies from
the Obama Administration should lead to less public emphasis on that particular rationale for
Russian policy in Latin America.
World Econ Impact
Oil cooperation happening now-key to world economy
AVN 7/13(“Venezuela and Russia develop 240 trade agreements” 7/02/13,
http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/venezuela-and-russia-develop-240-trade-agreements BG)
Caracas, 02 Jul. AVN.- Five new agreements on energy and trade were signed on Tuesday by
Russia and Venezuela, which concretizes a total of 240 agreements on support, integration and
complementarity between the two nations.¶ One of the agreements concerns joint ventures for
the production of non-associated natural gas and condensate in offshore areas of eastern
Venezuela. Another signed agreement is related to Russian participation in the development of
thermoelectric plants in Venezuela as well as new financing terms were approved between
Russian subsidiaries and State oil company PDVSA.¶ Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro,
currently on an official visit to Russia, highlighted the increase in trade relations with that
country and considered as strategic the ones on energy, thanks to the leadership consolidated by
supreme commander, Hugo Chavez, concerning his international policy.¶ He emphasized joint
cooperation with Russia on oil, which has allowed the daily production of 206,000 barrels in
joint ventures and said that within three or four years oil production from the RussianVenezuelan companies will reach one million barrels per day.¶ Regarding gas, Maduro stressed
offshore exploration and major bilateral investments that, according to Russian President
Vladimir Putin, amount to 21 billion dollars and will allow in about a year to certify Venezuela as
the fifth world's gas reserves.¶ "Venezuela will be a gas medium-level power ... Russia and
Venezuela are joining in what we know how to do and this relationship will be to the benefit of
the world economy in general," stressed the Venezuelan president Tuesday after holding a
meeting with his Russian counterpart, as part of his first official visit to that country.¶ Another
issue addressed by both leaders during this official visit, which included a meeting with Russian
parliamentarians, was the possibility of addressing new ways to fund Russian investments in
Venezuela.¶ In this regard, President Maduro said that the Russian-Venezuelan bank will open
soon an office in Caracas. This financial institution has already operational headquarters in
Moscow and Beijing.
Russia Econ UQ
Russia in economic decline
Peters 13 (Andrea Peters, “Russian government implements austerity as economy
falters”,World Socialist Website, July 10, 2013
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/10/rbud-j10.html, BG)
Russia’s minister of finance, Anton Sulianov, announced Thursday that the state budget is in a
crisis. According to official estimates, there is a one trillion ruble ($33 billion) shortfall for 2013
alone, requiring a “budgetary maneuver” (i.e., cuts) in state expenditures over the next three
years.¶ The government proposes to plug the “holes” by deep attacks on the working class,
including cutting payments to the state pension fund, decreasing state procurements by five
percent, and cutting spending on health care, education, and utilities.In addition, the ministry
may also drain 300 billion rubles from Russia’s Reserve Fund (a state-run sovereign wealth
fund), and divert income normally used to build up the Reserve Fund to meet budgetary goals.
The last time this occurred was during the 2008-2009 economic crisis, when the Kremlin used
the money to bail out Russian oligarchs and big businesses.¶ Though Russia is home to 11 of the
world’s top 100 billionaires, the government insists that austerity measures are the only solution
to Russia’s faltering economy. Growth rates have never recovered from the 2008 economic
crisis. This year they will hit a low of 2.4 percent, down from a projected 3.6 percent. Prior to the
world financial meltdown in 2008-2009, Russia’s economy had grown by as much 8-9 percent
in some years. Many economists now predict further weakening.¶ Despite repeated policy
declarations that Russia is moving towards diversifying its economy, the country’s wealth and
state budget remain overwhelmingly dependent on income earned from the energy sector. In the
first quarter of 2013, oil provided nearly 50 percent of total budget revenues. The International
Monetary Fund is demanding cuts, after warning that lower projected oil prices for 2014 put the
Russian budget in jeopardy.¶ At the same time, Russia faces massive capital outflows, as
investors offshore their profits. The Economist reports that in May 2013 alone, $9 billion left
Russia.¶ Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned of the coming austerity program,
insisting in his annual presentation of the proposed budget for 2014-2016 that the country’s
slowing growth meant that the state could no longer increase spending. In an interview with
news agency RIA Novosti around this time, Putin attacked the remnants of Europe’s social
welfare model, insisting that it created a “dependence mentality” and turned the continent into a
pole of attraction for social loafers.¶ Putin has often used assurances of increasing state spending
to shore up his popularity in the face of rising social discontent. Even as his minister of finance
announced the government’s plans to slash expenditures by $33 billion, Putin is insisting that
his “May decrees,” social promises issued to the electorate during last year’s presidential race,
will be fulfilled. This position is entirely at odds with his government’s plans, however.¶
Notwithstanding the Kremlin’s claims that it is cracking down on corruption and tax evasion,
the finance ministry’s latest announcement shows that it intends to place the burden of the
country’s economic and fiscal decline on the backs of the working class.¶ The Putin regime is
preparing for the latest in the many waves of attacks on Russian workers’ social conditions that
have followed the restoration of capitalism in Russia and the former USSR in 1991.¶ In this case,
the pension fund in particular is targeted. Proposed budget cuts from limiting transfers to the
state pension fund are to be exacted by changing the basis upon which pensions are calculated
and distributed.¶ The changes include: making pensions more dependent on individuals’ salary
history and length of service; increasing the number of years a person must have worked to
receive a pension from 5 to 15 years; increasing the percentage of a person’s pension to be
financed by his/her own contribution; and providing financial incentives for those who chose to
work beyond the official retirement age.¶ The reforms, going into effect January 1, 2014, will cut
the number of people eligible for a pension in Russia, destabilize the pension fund by making it
more dependent on individuals’ choice to contribute a portion of their salary, and raise the
retirement age.¶ The latter is a particular goal of government officials. While women will be
formally allowed to retire at age 55 and men at age 60, those who work additional years without
drawing on their pensions could receive as much as 50 percent more once they retire. Given that
the average pension in Russia is currently only $350 a month, many will make this choice. With
male life expectancy in the country at just over 64 years, many men will die before ever drawing
a pension—a fact that policy-makers doubtless welcome.¶ The pension reform will undermine
the minimal benefits of the small increases in state pensions that are currently being
implemented. By April of 2014, the average pension in Russia is expected to reach 11,144 rubles
(less than $400) a month. In 2016, it is expected to rise to 13,200 rubles (about $440) a month.
The current plan to end transfers to the state pension fund jeopardizes all of this.¶ Even if the
promised increases were to be implemented, these are poverty sums, whose impact will be
eroded through inflation in basic necessities and in particular, the gutting of state support for
health care.¶ The proposed austerity measures will devastate regional governments. Beyond
gutting federal expenditures on health care, education and utilities, responsibility for providing
these services will be increasingly offloaded onto the local administrations.¶ Unable to support
these outlays in the face of an increasingly difficult economic situation, experts anticipate that
regional authorities in Russia will simply gut social programs. A July 4 article in the online
business news agency Finmarket.ru warned of the prospect of unrest in Russia’s provinces as a
result.¶ While imposing austerity on the population, the Putin regime plans to refocus
government spending on the military and infrastructure construction, undertaken wherever
possible through so-called “public-private partnerships.” The latter, presented as a “growthoriented” strategy, will be a boondoggle for corporate interests and the corrupt officials
overseeing the deals. They will be the biggest beneficiaries of the slated 450-billion-ruble ($13.6
billion) plan.¶ The Kremlin also remains committed to dramatically increasing military spending,
with outlays on defense scheduled to rise by 63 percent from 2013 to 2016. There will also be
significant growth in expenditures on national security and law enforcement, which will swell by
9 percent in the same period.¶ Sections of the liberal opposition, namely former Minister of
Finance Alexei Kudrin, have vocally criticized Putin for sticking to his plan for a multi-trillionruble expansion of military spending. Kudrin is a well-known advocate of social cuts, including
increasing the pension age.
Russia Econ Impact
Russian influence in Latin America is key to its economy
SELA 9 (Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe or the Latin American and
Caribbean Economic System, July 2009, “Economic relations between the Russian Federation
and Latin America and the Caribbean: Current situation and prospects,”
http://www.sela.org/attach/258/EDOCS/SRed/2009/07/T023600003569-0Economic_relations_-_Russian_Federation_and_LAC.pdf) gz
Over the last few years, the economic relations between the Russian Federation and Latin America and
the Caribbean have evolved at a very rapid pace. The intensification of political dialogue and the highlevel official visits have played an important role in promoting economic and trade links. As a matter of
fact, several countries of the region are considered by Russian authorities as strategic partners. The
importance of Russia as an economic and trade partner for Latin American and Caribbean countries
increased during the 2000s, once the Russian economy recovered from the crisis of the 1990s essentially
characterized by the complex processes resulting from the disintegration of the USSR . As of 1999, the
dynamics of the Russian economy has been characterized by high growth rates of over 5%, and
the soundness of public finances. This is due to four major factors: a) macro-economic and
political steadiness, b) high oil prices in the world market, c) increasing domestic demand, and
d) more dynamic private entrepreneurship. During the period 2000-2008, Russia strengthened its
position in the global economy as it moved from the 17th position in the global ranking based on the
absolute GDP in nominal terms, up to the 8th position. While the domestic consumption has been
the main driving force for development, exports continue to play a key role for Russia’s
economy. During the aforementioned period, Russia’s foreign trade volume grew 5.2 times.
Thanks to its huge exports of hydrocarbons in 2008, this Euro-Asian country ranked 9th among
all of the world exporters. The volume of trade exchanges between Russia and Latin American and
Caribbean countries in this decade has almost tripled. In view of the increasing and steady demand,
Russia consolidated its position as an important market – and in some cases the main market – for a
series of agricultural products from the region. In turn, Latin American and Caribbean countries, which
buy huge amounts of Russian fertilizers, have also become relevant markets for Russian weapons and
other Russian-made products. The Russian Federation is seeking greater and better insertion in the global
economy. To this end, it has expanded cooperation in those areas where this country is more competitive,
such as the energy sector, mining, physical infrastructure and telecommunications and the military
technology. Emphasis is also made on projects in the areas of oil prospecting and extraction, construction
of hydroelectric power stations, space exploration, and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Important strides have been made in these sectors with a view to increasing economic cooperation
between Russia and various countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. This reinforced
collaboration is the result – among other factors – to the work conducted by the
Intergovernmental Commissions between Russia and its main partners of the region. Emphasis
is also made on the positive role played by the recently created Business Committees. The
strengthening of the economic, trade and financial links between Russia and the countries of the
region is based on a legal framework of agreements which is permanently renewed with new
agreements among governments and companies of both parties.
<insert michael bay sound effect>
David 99 (Steven R David, professor of international relations at John Hopkins, PhD from
Harvard, January/February 1999, “Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign
Affairs)
AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918 -- 20 has Russia been closer to bloody conflict than it is
today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array of problems without the power to take
effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by
the KGB and the Communist Party. Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has
yet to be filled. Unable to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the
government must prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its
performance. But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the
most basic needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer look to the state for
personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care, or even electrical power. In the
place of government authority, criminal groups -- the Russian Mafia -- increasingly hold sway.
Expectations raised by the collapse of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and
Moscow's inability to govern coherently raises the specter of civil unrest. If internal war does strike
Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen
by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5
percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two
percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern
Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut
spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without welldefined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects
for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive
devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most
analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A
future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the
powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian
control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between
government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has
fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical
care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and
new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the
political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police
force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger.
Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees
serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a
conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the
military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the
Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89
republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep
them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if
even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and
less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them
already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong
ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the
Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for
autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow
responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the
United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does
not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic
attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western
Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting,
particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia.
Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last
Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might
produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of
Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to
civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia
retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more , in scores of sites
scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any
weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will
slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such
dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to
think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil
war.
Civil War impact calc
Civil war outweighs
a. Probability and endurance
David 8 (Steven R David, professor of international relations at John Hopkins, PhD from
Harvard, 2008, “Catastrophic Consequences: Civil Wars and American Interests,” p 7) gz
However defined, civil wars have always been more numerous than international wars, a dominance
that has grown over time. From 1816 to 2002, civil wars made up only slightly more than half of all wars .
14 With the end of the Cold War, international wars, as noted, have dropped precipitously, but internal
conflicts still abound. It is true that in absolute terms civil conflicts have declined as wars related to
decolonization have ended and the superpowers no longer back clients in the Third World as part of their
Cold War competition. Nevertheless, fully 95% of armed conflicts from 1995 to 2005 occurred within
countries rather than between them. 15 Since the end of the Cold War, over one-third of all countries have
endured serious civil conflict. 16 Those that may have escaped internal violence are still in danger
of succumbing to civil war in the future. According to the political scientists Monty Marshall and
Ted Gurr, fully 31 out of 161 countries surveyed have a high risk of being vulnerable to civil conflict, while
an additional 51 countries have a moderate risk. All told, therefore, half of the world’s states can credibly
be seen as being at risk of falling victim to civil war or some other form of major internal disorder . 17
Making matters worse, once civil wars begin, they are notoriously difficult to stop. Civil wars typically
last much longer than wars between countries. They are far more likely to be halted by one side winning a
military victory than by a negotiated settlement. Unlike state-to-state conflict, where the belligerents can
retreat back to their respective countries once the war is over, in a civil war the opposing sides must
somehow live together in a single country despite the profound differences that drove them apart. As
such, civil wars have a disturbing tendency to flare up again after a peace settlement has been reached. 18
Insofar as organized violence is a problem, it is largely a problem that occurs inside a country’s
borders.
b. Can’t be stabilized
David 8 (Steven R David, professor of international relations at John Hopkins, PhD from
Harvard, 2008, “Catastrophic Consequences: Civil Wars and American Interests,” pp 7-8) gz
Aside from being so prevalent and chronic, civil wars show no signs of going away. The forces for
peace that almost completely halted wars between states largely do not apply to civil wars. The reassuring
logic of nuclear deterrence does not hold in civil wars, where mixed populations may preclude clearly
delineated targets upon which one can threaten murderous retaliation. While there have been no civil
wars that have engulfed entire nuclear weapons states, widespread domestic strife in such nuclear
powers as China, Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa, and Russia does not provide much encouragement
about the peace-inducing effects of nuclear arms. Nor does the recognition that war does not pay offer
much hope of halting civil conflicts. The intifadas waged against Israel in the late 1980s and first years of
the twenty-first century erupted with the full knowledge of the Palestinian people that they would bring
economic ruin in their wake. No one suggests that democracy prevents war within countries as it appears
to do between countries. Civil wars or major internal violence in democracies like the United States, India,
and Israel give lie to the notion of a “democratic peace” when the fighting is confined to one country.
While global norms against conflict do some good in inhibiting wars between countries, they are largely
ineffectual with regard to internal wars. When Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in 1988, it produced
scant international protest. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, however, provoked a grand
multinational intervention, led by the United States, that reversed his aggression. The lesson is clear: if
you want to go to war, confine it to your country. Nor does globalization seriously inhibit civil conflict.
Just as the benefits of globalization are uneven across countries, exacerbating international tensions, so
are they uneven within countries, making worse existing domestic conflicts. The notion that people
have internalized norms of nonviolence and peaceful resolutions of disputes does not apply for
many civil conflicts, where brutality and needless bloodshed are commonplace.
c. Multiple scenarios for WMD use
David 8 (Steven R David, professor of international relations at John Hopkins, PhD from
Harvard, 2008, “Catastrophic Consequences: Civil Wars and American Interests,” pp 13-5) gz
Of the many dangers to the United States that would be unleashed by civil conflict, several stand out. The
greatest is the use of weapons of mass destruction against American allies or the United States itself.
Weapons of mass destruction typically comprise nuclear, biological, radiological, and chemical arms. Of
this group, nuclear weapons are by far the most worrisome because only they are able to
produce sudden destruction on a scale never before witnessed in the history of mankind. It only
takes a single nuclear bomb to destroy a city along with millions of its inhabitants. With the
spread of nuclear weapons and fissionable materials to countries throughout the world, there is
an alarming possibility that this destructive capability will fall into the wrong hands. Once
extremist groups gain control of nuclear arms, delivery against the United States or its allies would be
frighteningly easy. 36 Biological weapons are nearly as worrisome as their nuclear counterparts.
Biological weapons are living organisms that kill or maim. Some, like smallpox, are highly contagious,
while others, such as anthrax, are frequently deadly. Under the right conditions, biological weapons can
kill hundreds of thousands. 37 Even when the level of fatalities is not high, biological weapons
produce a staggering psychological impact. Only five people were killed in the post-9/11 anthrax
attacks in the United States, but offices of the Capitol were closed for months, mail service was
drastically curtailed, and there was a heightened level of fear throughout America. If biological
warfare does not rise to being a weapon of mass destruction, it will, at the very least, succeed in
being a weapon of mass disruption wherever it is deployed. 38 Only slightly less alarming are
radiological weapons, so-called dirty bombs. By attaching radioactive material, such as cobalt or
americium, to a conventional explosive, large areas can be contaminated for years. One
shudders to think of the effect of a dirty bomb in New York’s Times Square or the Mall in
Washington, DC. 39 Finally, there are chemical weapons, such as poison gas. It is not clear that
chemical weapons are any more lethal than conventional arms, but like biological and
radiological weapons, they have a powerful psychological effect. Unlike nuclear or possibly
biological weapons, chemical arms do not pose an existential threat to the United States or other
great powers. But if used against the United States directly, American forces abroad, or
American allies, they could be a cataclysmic challenge to Washington’s sense of security. 40
Weapons of mass destruction allow the very weak, for the first time in history, to inflict catastrophic
damage on the very strong. No longer is it necessary to be agreat power to threaten a great power . The
mere possession of a single nuclear bomb, or possibly a vial filled with germs, elevates a
primitive country or ragtag group to a mortal threat against the mightiest of nations. So long as
these weapons are within the firm control of strong states, however, America and other
countries can rest comfortably. Just as deterrence kept the peace between the United States and
the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so too can it be counted upon to keep the peace between
the United States and the new proliferators. Problems arise when the government loses control over
its weapons of mass destruction, most alarmingly when it loses control over its nuclear arsenal. At this
point, deterrence collapses and the likelihood of these arms being used against the United States and
others soars. Civil war or major domestic disorder is a prime means by which governmental control over
its arsenal can become compromised. At the very least, nuclear accidents become more likely. The
primitive designs of nuclear arms, especially in developing states, make them vulnerable to detonation if
they get caught up in the firefights of civil conflict. Accidental detonations could produce a humanitarian
disaster, or worse, could provoke a nuclear war if the explosion was misread as an enemy attack. Civil war
also increases the chances of unauthorized launchings of nuclear arms. The command and control of the
nuclear forces of many countries is suspect. Especially in the context of domestic violence, the ability of
governments to prevent lower-ranking subordinates from launching weapons may be undermined. A
colonel seething with hatred might take advantage of the chaos of civil war to initiate an attack against a
regional rival, perhaps provoking a major nuclear war. Even a limited strike would hurt American
interests by eroding the taboo against using nuclear weapons and possibly causing many
innocent deaths. For any of these horrors, the comfortable reassurances of deterrence do not
apply. By letting loose weapons that had previously been under the control of responsible
governments, civil wars raise the possibility of a nuclear attack that would seriously threaten
American interests. Deterrence will also be of little use if weapons of mass destruction fall into the
hands of terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda. Deterrence rests on the assumption that adversaries can be
persuaded not to do something they are capable of doing by the threat of unacceptable punishment.
Terrorist groups cannot be dissuaded from their deadly agendas, because their location is largely
unknown. Since they are not countries, they have no “return address,” complicating any threat of
retaliation. Moreover, many of the adherents of terror groups embrace death. Perhaps they truly believe
that death in a noble cause will transport them to Paradise, or they may believe intently the justness of
their cause merits the sacrifice of theirgreat power to threaten a great power. The problem, however, is
that especially in the post– Cold War world, the means to wreak catastrophic harm are all too
available. The spread of nuclear weapons and fissionable material as well as other weapons of mass
destruction to countries in the developing world, such as Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iran, presents
opportunities for transfer to extremist groups that previously did not exist. Civil war is not the only way
these weapons can find themselves in the hands of those who would do America harm. Theft and
voluntary transfer of arms remain ominous possibilities. But when civil war occurs in countries
where extremist groups abound, there is an alarming possibility that these groups will take advantage of
the chaos and violence to seize nuclear arms. By facilitating the transfer of nuclear weapons and
other weapons of mass destruction into the hands of those who will unhesitatingly use them
against American cities, civil wars could play a central role in jeopardizing the most vital of U.S.
interests.
GPW Impact
Denying Russia the sphere of influence causes great power war
Eland 8(Ivan Eland, Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace &
Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and
received an M.B.A. in applied economics and a Ph.D. in Public Policy from George Washington
University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15
years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget
Office., “Is a “Resurgent” Russia a Threat to the United States?” November 3, 2008
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2363, BG)
¶ The Russian military was clearly superior to that of a small country in its “near abroad”—
Georgia—but is a “resurgent” Russia a threat to the United States? If the United States insists on
expanding its informal empire into Russia’s nearby sphere of influence, it has to expect some
pushback from a Russia that is no longer as weak as it once was and is resentful at having been
trampled on during the 1990s and early 2000s.¶ At the end of the Cold War, the United States
pledged verbally to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if the U.S.S.R. allowed Germany to
reunite and embed in NATO, the U.S. would not expand the alliance, which the bear perceives as
hostile. The United States, however, violated this promise and repeatedly expanded NATO—
inducting former Soviet Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe and even former Soviet republics
(the Baltic states). (Incredibly, even after the U.S. and NATO were proved impotent in helping
Georgia during its recent war with Russia, the Bush administration is still pressuring its
reluctant European allies to admit Georgia and the Ukraine, an even more important former
Soviet republic on Russia’s border). Further showing that the U.S. foreign policy elite never
ended the Cold War have been repeated acts by both Democratic and Republican presidents to
thumb their nose at a weakened Russia—for example, winning U.S. access to military bases in
former Soviet Central Asia, rerouting energy pipelines from the oil-rich Caspian Sea around
Russian territory, and planning to build missile defense installations in the territories of former
Soviet allies Poland and the Czech Republic.¶ But the bear is now coming out of a long
hibernation a bit rejuvenated. Using increased petroleum revenues from the oil price spike, the
Russians will hike defense spending 26 percent next year to about $50 billion—the highest level
since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet as the oil price declines from this historic high, Russia
will have fewer revenues to increase defense spending and rebuild its military.¶ Even the $50
billion a year has to be put in perspective. The United States is spending about $700 billion per
year on defense and starting from a much higher plain of capability. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the Russian military fell apart and was equivalent to that of a developing country.
Even the traditionally hawkish U.S. military and defense leaders and analysts are not worried
about Russia’s plans to buy modern arms, improve military living standards to attract better
senior enlisted personnel, enhance training, and cut back the size of the bloated forces and
officer corps. For example, Eugene B. Rumer of the U.S. National Defense University was quoted
in the Washington Post as saying that Russian actions are “not a sign, really, of the Russian
military being reborn, but more of a Russia being able to flex what relatively little muscle it has
on the global scale, and to show that t actually matters.”[1]¶ In addition, the Russian military is
very corrupt—with an estimated 40 percent of the money for some weapons and pay for
personnel being stolen or wasted. This makes the amount of real defense spending far below the
nominal $50 billion per year.¶ U.S. analysts say, however, that increased military spending
would allow Russia to have more influence over nations in its near abroad and Eastern Europe.
Of course, throughout history, small countries living in the shadow of larger powers have had to
make political, diplomatic, and economic adjustments to suit the larger power. Increased
Russian influence in this sphere, however, should not necessarily threaten the security of the
faraway United States. It does only because the United States has defined its security as
requiring intrusions into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. By expanding NATO into
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the United States has guaranteed the security of
these allied countries against a nuclear-armed power, in the worst case, by sacrificing its cities in
a nuclear war. Providing this kind of guarantee for these non-strategic countries is not in the
U.S. vital interest. Denying Russia the sphere of influence in nearby areas traditionally enjoyed
by great powers (for example, the U.S. uses the Monroe Doctrine to police the Western
Hemisphere) will only lead to unnecessary U.S.-Russian tension and possibly even cataclysmic
war.
Russian Influence Impact
Movements away from American domination in Latin America in the
status quo but Russian involvement is the key catalyst – solves
Russian influence, their economy, Latin American stability, and
NATO missile installations
Pelaez 12 (Vicky Pelaez, Peruvian journalist writing for the Moscow Times, agent of the
Russian Federation, 5-18-12, “Winds of Change Alter Latin America’s Relationship with Russia,”
http://themoscownews.com/international/20120518/189743009.html) gz
The economic crisis that hit the United States a few years ago and subsequently spread to the
European Union has brought about dramatic changes in the world's economic system built by
globalists after the World War II. But the recession in North America and in Europe has
triggered the emergence of new important development poles and new geopolitical players,
including the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and many Latin American
economies affiliated with MERCOSUR or ALBA. ¶ There are two opposite socio-economic
processes going on in today's new global context. Battered by the recession, which has sent their
unemployment to 21 percent, the Americans have now surrendered to Wall Street, renouncing
the famous social contract developed by the nation's Founding Fathers more than 200 years
ago. The 27 EU member states, meanwhile, are no longer part of a zone of stability, democracy
and sustainable development. They have drastically slashed the public sector and enhanced the
private one, in keeping with Margaret Thatcher's slogan, "There is no such thing as society."¶
Latin American countries, grouped into regional alliances, have, by contrast, begun to restore
the role of society in economic and political life, restraining the power of transnational
corporations and local oligarchs. Such measures stimulate the region's sustainable economic
growth, which has come close to the figures posted in emerging Asian markets, and a majority of
the population stands to benefit. On the other hand, Latin America is looking for new
commercial partners that would help it diversify its markets and rid itself of North American
hegemony.¶ This process complements Russia's ambition to enhance its geopolitical agenda,
which is oriented toward creating a multipolar world to replace the unipolar world order
imposed by the U.S. following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Already in 1997, then-Foreign
Minister Yevgeny Primakov of Russia, who was instrumental to shaping the country's postSoviet international agenda, noted during a trip to Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica
that Latin America could become a major Russian ally in the construction of a multipolar world
thanks to its increasingly high profile on the international scene. Nine years later, his successor
Sergei Lavrov launched a proactive policy of rapprochement with Latin America. And thenpresident Dmitry Medvedev spoke in support of making this agenda a key priority.¶ Russia needs
Latin America both from a geo-economical and a geopolitical perspective. This is why there have
been more than 22 summits and some 60 high-level meetings with Latin American leaders over
the past three years. In 2011, trade with the region grew by 15 percent, to $12.4 billion, while the
United States' share in the regional market dropped to 40.1 percent in 2011, down from 57.7
percent in 2000. The Russians are above all interested in Latin America's natural resources,
especially hydrocarbons and minerals, as well as in the region's agricultural produce, which is
remarkably rich and diverse. ¶ Negotiations are currently underway over several large-scale
collaborative projects in the aerospace industry and in nuclear energy production. The major
Russian air carriers, Aeroflot and Transaero, are contemplating restoring direct flights to
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela. Armaments remain
among the most prominent exports to Latin America, especially Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.
Unlike the restrictive visa policy imposed by the U.S. Homeland Security Department on Latin
American visitors, Moscow has recently signed bilateral treaties scrapping visas with Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela.¶ As for Washington,
despite its economic woes and its long-standing military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it
continues to deploy military bases across Latin America, in an effort to avoid the loss of
influence here amid the commercial and geopolitical expansion of Russia and China. At the
moment, the Americans are busy upgrading their military base in Chaco, Argentina, and
building a new one in the Dominican Republic. Recently, they opened a military facility in
Valparaíso province, some 130 kilometers from the capital, Santiago. Overall, there are as many
as 24 U.S. military bases deployed in Latin American and Caribbean nations, and they are all
ready to be used as springboards for future interventions.¶ It stands to reason that in such
circumstances, Latin American countries, with their increasingly strong regional solidarity,
would prefer Russia's commercial expansion to the military expansion of the United States. The
problem is that Russian companies are still hesitant to heavily invest in Latin America - not
because of a lack of funds, but for stability concerns stemming from the region's past volatility,
with its military regimes and frequent coups. ¶ On the other hand, Russia seeks to restore its
prestige as a superpower, a goal impossible to achieve without modernizing the national
economy. The country hopes to do so with technological assistance from the West. This is why
ex-president Medvedev recently cautioned against laying the blame for all the problems facing
the world at the United States' door. ¶ Moscow needs strong alliances in Latin America to
counter the U.S. policy of deploying NATO military bases in countries adjacent to Russia and
surrounding it with radar systems and missile defense installations. It is hardly surprising,
therefore, that just one day after having been sworn in as president, Vladimir Putin signed a
decree on measures to implement Russia's foreign policy. In one of its paragraphs, the
document emphasizes the need "to continue deepening relations with Latin American and
Caribbean nations, raising Russia's profile in regional forums, making the most of the Latin
American markets' potential to strengthen the positions of Russian companies in manufacturing
industries, hydrocarbon production, transport and communications, and doing everything
possible to enhance Russia's involvement in regional alliances and institutions." ¶ The agenda is
an ambitious one. It will take time to translate into reality, as well as for Latin America to
overcome its old prejudices and fears of Moscow, especially the foreign relations doctrine
adopted on Primakov's initiative back in the 1990s, which did not differ much from that of the
United States. Washington declares that it has permanent national interests, but no permanent
friends or foes. Moscow, too, sees its friendships and rivalries in terms of national interest. ¶ The
people of Latin America can see these two doctrines at work in former Yugoslavia, Iraq and
Libya. Now they are also carefully watching developments in Syria, Iran and North Korea to find
out what they can expect of Russia. As for U.S. attitudes, these are already only too familiar.
BMD kills relations and causes withdrawal from START
Weir 11
(Fred Weir, writer for CSM, 6.8.11, Christian Science Monitor, “New US-Russia arms race?
Battle lines grow over missile defense.,”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0608/New-US-Russia-arms-race-Battlelines-grow-over-missile-defense/(page)/2)
The Russians say rhetorical pledges aren't good enough . "Russia wants commitments and legal guarantees which
the Obama administration is not able to provide," says Vladimir Dvorkin, an expert with the Security Center at the official Institute
of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow. "Political stubborness on both sides makes it difficult to have a
constructive dialogue on this topic." The Kremlin appears deeply concerned about the Pentagon's "Phased
Adaptive" missile defense plan, which envisages about 440 antimissile interceptors based on 43 ships and two
European land bases, in Poland and Romania, by the end of this decade. The biggest worry, Russian experts say, is the later
phases of the project, which will see large numbers of the advanced SM-3 "Block II" interceptors deployed
beginning in 2018. "The situation completely changes with the realization of the (later) stages of the missile defense plan," Lt. Gen.
Andrei Tretyak, of Russia's General Staff, told journalists last month. "This is a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces." Gen.
Tretyak said that exhaustive studies ordered by Russia's Defense Ministry have concluded that the planned
deployments would pose a sufficient menace to Russian intercontinental missiles that Russia's
strategic parity with the US would be undermined, along with the basic principles of the
New START treaty. Wording inserted into that treaty by Russia specifically allows it to withdraw if
the West deploys antimissile weapons "capable of significantly reducing the effectiveness of the Russian Federation's
strategic nuclear forces." Sign up now to receive our daily World Editor's Picks newsletter. Our best stories, in your inbox. A
Russian withdrawal from New START might bring all progress in US-Russia relations to a
halt, and greatly encourage foreign policy hardliners on both sides. Obama and Medvedev, both
of whom face looming reelection battles, need to avoid that and find a formula that at least allows Russia and the US to
continue talking amicably about missile defense cooperation, experts say. The outcome of Thursday's meeting
between Mr. Gates and Mr. Serdyukov will be closely watched for the positive, or negative, signal it sends. "New START was the
single real success of the US-Russia reset of relations, and it would be politically bad for both Obama and Medvedev if it were seen to
be a failure," says Viktor Kremeniuk, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow. "But the only
sure way to save it is to move forward and tackle the thorny issue of missile defense," he says. "The
burning need of both presidents to win a political success can break the logjam in these talks and make the nuts-and-bolts
negotiators move along faster. This can be solved, but it will take political will."
Influence K2 Iran-Israel
Russian diplomacy solves Iran Iranian nuclear problem
Krivobok 9 (Ruslan Krivobok, Rianovosti, 9/29/09
http://en.rian.ru/world/20100929/160770071.html, BG)
Russia believes that diplomatic negotiations are the only way to settle the tensions surrounding
Iran's nuclear program, Russia's envoy to the UN said on Wednesday.¶ "Russia does not see any
alternative to a diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear problem through constructive
dialogue between Tehran and the Iran Six," Vitaly Churkin said at the UN General Assembly. He
emphasized that Russia would do its utmost to aid the resumption of the multilateral talks with
Iran. "As for sanctions, they are not a goal in and of themselves. The sanction regime imposed by
the UN Security Council is to send Iran a signal about the necessity of full-fledged cooperation
with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and give a boost to the negotiation
process," Churkin said.¶ Russia is categorically opposed to situations "when unilateral decisions
on imposing sanctions are taken in parallel with collective measures in the UN Security
Council," Churkin said.¶ Russia, the United States, China, Britain, France and Germany have
been trying since 2003 to convince Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program and to alleviate
concerns about its nuclear ambitions.¶ Western powers suspect Iran of building nuclear weapons
under the guise of a nuclear program that Tehran claims is entirely peaceful and focused on
power generation.¶ International pressure on Iran increased in early February when Tehran
announced it had begun enriching uranium to 20 percent in lieu of an agreement on an
exchange that would provide it with fuel for a research reactor. In June, the UN Security Council
passed a resolution imposing a fourth set of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
Russian diplomacy checks Iranian weapons
Pravda Ru 6(“Russia calls for diplomacy to solve Iranian nuclear problem” Pravda Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/23-05-2006/80816-russia-0/BG)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday called for political and diplomatic means to
solve the Iranian nuclear problem, Russian news agencies reported.¶ Lavrov also said Moscow
favors the approach of three European Union countries in handling the crisis around Iran's
suspected nuclear weapons program.¶ France, Britain and Germany are working on a proposal
containing incentives and sanctions to encourage Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. The
package may include a light-water reactor, which is considered less likely to be misused for
nuclear proliferation than a heavy-water facility, which produces plutonium waste.¶ "We hope
that Tehran accept the negotiations proposals, which Russia also supports," Lavrov was quoted
as saying in Kuwait by the Interfax news agency.¶ Last week Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad mocked the offer, saying it was like giving up gold for chocolate. The rejection
appeared certain to complicate efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, reports the AP.
AT
Perm
Target country says no – perceives perm as dragging them in to USRussia rivalry
Blank, 10 – (Stephen J., Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College; “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,”
University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, 13 April 2010,
https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-1310.pdf)//HO
But other Latin American countries oppose being dragged into the Russo-American rivalry and
becoming a battleground like the former Soviet Union. Enhanced trade and relations with Russia are one
thing; becoming objects of a new quasi-Cold War struggle is another thing entirely. Countries other
than Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia clearly value not just the opportunity to enter into the Russian market or buy arms,
but also to gain a voice in their campaign to induce the United States to return to a policy of more multilateralism and concern for
their security interests.29 But they oppose returning Latin America to being a front in a Cold War
replay, especially as Russia clearly tries to utilize leftist anti-American states like Venezuela
own purposes.30 Instead, most states prefer that Latin America be “impervious” to global threats .
for its
Energy Security DA
The oil that Russia has a stake in isn’t sufficient to give them majority
control – cooperation with Venezuela is for their alliance’s sake
Márquez, 3/18 – (Humberto, journalist of 25 years with the Inter Press Service News
Agency, citing José Suárez Núñez from the oil journal Petrofinanzas; “Russia to Get Venezuelan
Oil for a Few Cents a Barrel,” 18 March 2013, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/russia-to-getvenezuelan-oil-for-a-few-cents-a-barrel/)//HO
José Suárez Núñez, of the specialist publication Petrofinanzas, highlighted Russia’s inroads in
the Orinoco belt, although he said “volumes for now are minuscule, and the crude is extra heavy and
very costly to refine.” This contrasts “with deposits of lighter oil and (Russia’s) lead in production
volumes, at 10 million bpd,” he told IPS.¶ Most of the crude in the Orinoco oil belt is extra heavy, less than 10
degrees API (American Petroleum Institute classification), compared to over 30 degrees API in oil from the Middle East, Russia or
the North Sea. Before distillation, this extra heavy oil must be improved in a process equivalent to partial
refining.¶ “Rosneft’s agreements with PDVSA are part of Russia’s projection towards Latin
America, a region that has traditionally been in the sphere of influence of the United States,” said Kenneth Ramírez, an expert on
oil geopolitics and president of the private Venezuelan Council of International Relations.¶ This projection is part of “Russia’s grand
strategy to re-emerge as a global power and replicate the advance of Washington over what was once its zone of influence, in central
and southern Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Black Sea,” he told IPS.¶ “Among its strategies is strengthening its ties with
Brazil, the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and making advances to ALBA (the eight-member Bolivarian
Alliance of the Peoples of Our America) which is led by Venezuela,” Ramírez said.¶ Russian President Vladimir Putin sent the head of
Rosneft, Igor Sechin, as his special representative to the state funeral for Chávez on Mar. 8.¶ Sechin met with Nicolás Maduro, the
acting president of Venezuela and the candidate expected to win the Apr. 14 elections, to smooth over obstacles in the bilateral oil
relationship.¶ Local media indicate PDVSA is having difficulties meeting its financial commitments,
pointing to delays in its obligations to Brazilian state oil company Petrobras for the construction of the Abreu e
Lima refinery.¶ But oil minister Rafael Ramírez, who is also head of PDVSA, confirmed “the commitment to continue the energy
policy begun in 1999″ by the late president Chávez.¶ “The strategic relationship with China and Russia will be deepened, in
concordance with the multipolar scheme that has been the basis of the foreign policy of the revolution,” said the minister.¶ As the
projects are developed, the Russian-Venezuelan alliance will invest 46 billion dollars in the Orinoco belt, of which Moscow will
contribute 17 billion dollars, he said.¶ Kenneth Ramírez highlighted that Rosneft is also working in mature fields
(those in
which production has passed its peak) in areas other than the Orinoco belt, and has signed agreements to
isn’t seeking supplies of oil,
since it has reserves of 88 billion barrels, but it’s looking for deals to leverage a strategic alliance,” he said.¶ In
Poleo’s view, “it is good business for the new Venezuelan nomenklatura (people in key administrative positions) to
build alliances with Putin and his ‘siloviki,’ high level members of the KGB (the former Soviet Union’s intelligence and
security agency) who took over the management of large companies after the fall of the old regime.”¶ Venezuela’s military
purchases from Russia appear to fit in the context of this alliance.
participate in future gas production and to supply drills for crude extraction.¶ “Moscow
Aff
Solvency
General
Can’t solve – Russia doesn’t have the capacity and Latin American
countries can’t support it
Blank, 10 – (Stephen J., Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College; “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,”
University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, 13 April 2010,
https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-1310.pdf)//HO
Still, while Russia will continue expanding its ties to Latin America, Russia’s capacities for deep involvement are
less than it wants, as is Latin American states’ ability to support Russian goals. This is especially
true for countries like Venezuela that depend on energy or commodities revenues, as their
capabilities have also declined due to the global economic crisis. Thus Russia will only partially, if
at all, meet Latin American expectations for support, even in stricken economies like Cuba.5
Likewise, Russian companies charged with developing relations with Latin America recently
acknowledged that little or no economic expansion will occur anytime soon. For example, even though
Russia and Venezuela ostentatiously agreed to create oil and gas companies, Russian companies have few liquid
assets for investing in Latin America.6 Indeed, Russia habitually makes grandiose claims and then
fails to implement them, as we can see in Moscow’s energy programs in Siberia, the Far East and Central Asia.7 Not
surprisingly, even Venezuela displays skepticism about Russia’s ability to transform its ties to
Venezuela, which are mainly in arms sales, into a relationship based on large-scale investment and diplomatic coordination.
And, Latin American countries don’t want involvement in the USRussia rivalry
Blank, 10 – (Stephen J., Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College; “Russia and Latin America: Motives and Consequences,”
University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, 13 April 2010,
https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-1310.pdf)//HO
But other Latin American countries oppose being dragged into the Russo-American rivalry and
becoming a battleground like the former Soviet Union. Enhanced trade and relations with
Russia are one thing; becoming objects of a new quasi-Cold War struggle is another thing
entirely. Countries other than Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia clearly value not just the
opportunity to enter into the Russian market or buy arms, but also to gain a voice in their
campaign to induce the United States to return to a policy of more multilateralism and concern
for their security interests.29 But they oppose returning Latin America to being a front in a Cold
War replay, especially as Russia clearly tries to utilize leftist anti-American states like Venezuela
for its own purposes.30 Instead, most states prefer that Latin America be “impervious” to global
threats.
No solvency – Russia doesn’t have the geopolitical ability to do the
plan
Lukyanov, 9 – (Fyodor, editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, Chairman of
Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy; “Putin’s Russia: The Quest for a New
Place,” Social Research, Vol. 76 No. 1, Spring 2009,
http://socialresearch.metapress.com/media/6ea5djyglp0ypcuq9evl/contributions/a/n/3/w/an
3w55pn5154171m.pdf)//HO
Russia constitutes a unique combination. It is a developed state ¶ that has for centuries participated in European and
global politics and ¶ that has traditionally held conservative positions. At the same time, it is ¶ a fastdeveloping country with an “emerging power” psychology.¶ Russia is bitterly seeking recognition
as a European nation and is ¶ offended by Europe’s reluctance to recognize it as such. At the same time, ¶ it rejects Europe as an alien
model (which it has recently found to be ¶ economically and politically ineffective) and is gravitating toward South ¶ and East Asia,
although it has nothing in common with those regions.¶ Simultaneously, Russia is seeking to preserve the world
order in ¶ those areas where it finds it advantageous, and to promote changes in ¶ all the other
elements. Russia is dreaming of a great future but is trying ¶ to find its sources in the past.¶ But most
important, Russia is changing at such a speed that ¶ makes it impossible to fix and comprehend any
particular moment ¶ of its development. Here, however, Russia differs little from the world ¶ in which mankind has
lived since the beginning of the twenty-first ¶ century.¶ The economic crisis has created a new situation. Russia
should ¶ reduce its geopolitical ambitions, which have emerged in the last few ¶ years, as well as its national budget.
The illusions of might, based on ¶ the possession of expensive commodities that everyone needs, are ¶ fading. There is no
doubt that in a couple of years the demand for ¶ energy resources will grow again. But until then, Russia will have to ¶ go through
another period of difficulties, whose outcome is not clear. ¶ Depending on its outcome, Putin’s era will be viewed either as a time ¶ of
lost opportunities or as the eve of a real revival of Russia as a modern ¶ great power.
Cuba
Cuba says no
Blank, 11 – (Stephen J., Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College; “Civil-Military Relations in Medvedev’s Russia,” University of
Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, January 2011,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub1038.pdf)//HO
This Latin American example illustrates that the ¶ rivalry opens up areas for well-connected
political entrepreneurs like Igor Sechin, acting on behalf of Putin, ¶ to launch defense and foreign policy
initiatives that ¶ expose Russia to some risk and dangerous adventures and suggests that the military
services are being ¶ drawn into this game on one or another contender’s ¶ side, a further example of politicization of the armed ¶
forces and the increasingly risk-accepting behavior of ¶ the Russian government. Displaying that strategic motivation to counter U.S.
policy, President Putin, even ¶ before the Georgian war of 2008, also seemed to be ¶ trying to conduct his own
security and foreign policy ¶ in competition with his heir, President Medvedev, by ¶ planting hints among
military men that Russia should ¶ restore its relations with Cuba and establish an air ¶ base there.
He even sent Deputy Prime Minister Igor ¶ Sechin and Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev to Cuba in 2008 to discuss
enhanced cooperation ¶ between the two states. Given Patrushev’s position as ¶ Head of the Security Council, this could only mean ¶
defense cooperation. Such moves clearly aimed to ¶ irritate the United States gratuitously. Cuba refused ¶ to bite because
these plans were publicly announced ¶ without consulting it in advance, further evidence that ¶
they served interests other than that of Cuba.135 Cuba’s ¶ Foreign Minister even denied any knowledge of the ¶
Russian plan for deploying military sites there, and ¶ Fidel Castro publicly praised Raul Castro’s restraint ¶ in
refusing to be provoked by Moscow or by U.S. Air ¶ Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, who ¶ said that such a
base would be crossing the red line.136
Human Trafficking
Russia has a horrendous human trafficking record
Keleman 6/19 (Michele Keleman, former NPR Moscow bureau chief, MA from the School
of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 6-19-13, “Russia And China
Dinged In U.S. Human Trafficking Report,”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=193576474) gz
Russia, China and Uzbekistan are among the countries that the U.S. says are not doing enough
to combat modern-day slavery. That was one of the many findings in the State Department's
annual human trafficking report released this afternoon.¶ NPR's Michele Kelemen tells us more.¶
MICHELE KELEMEN, BYLINE: Luis CdeBaca runs the State Department's Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons.¶ LUIS CDEBACA: Globally, we're seeing more victims being
identified than ever before. We're seeing more prosecutions than before. But at the same time,
we're seeing some countries that are getting ahead and some countries that are maybe a little bit
adrift.¶ KELEMEN: He points to Russia, which is poised to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in
Sochi. CdeBaca is paying particular attention to sex trafficking and the status of Central Asian
migrant workers building facilities for the games.¶ CDEBACA: We are encouraged by the fact
that they recently arrested the sex trafficking ring in Sochi, but we want to make sure that it's
not simply the focus on sex trafficking around the Olympic Games but also labor trafficking in
the run-up to the construction.¶ KELEMEN: Anti-trafficking activists, including David
Abramowitz, were pleased to see Russia named and shamed in this year's report.¶ DAVID
ABRAMOWITZ: We could have U.S. athletes staying in buildings that were built with exploited
or slave labor. That's really unacceptable.¶ KELEMEN: Abramowitz, who runs the Alliance to
End Slavery and Trafficking, calls the annual State Department report a useful diplomatic tool,
even if it doesn't always lead to cuts in aid.¶ ABRAMOWITZ: While Russia is not a recipient of
U.S. foreign assistance, the fact that the State Department is declaring that it is not making
significant efforts to combat human trafficking and modern-day slavery will be a blow to its
record and its prestige, and I think that countries care about that.¶ KELEMEN: He says countries
long on the watch list, like Malaysia and Thailand, should take note. The State Department also
wants the report to hit home with Americans, as Luis CdeBaca explains.¶ CDEBACA: This year's
report looks at things like the fishing industry and actually raises a question that I think all of us
should be asking, which is: How much of my life is impacting modern-day slavery? Do I know
where the shrimp is being caught or processed that is on my plate? Do I know where the cotton
is coming from that's on my clothes?¶ KELEMEN: Trafficking in persons touches Americans in
other ways. Among the nine activists that the State Department is honoring this year is a
Croatian police investigator Katrin Gluic, who has rescued women from forced prostitution and
recalls one Friday afternoon last year when she heard an American needed help.¶ KATRIN
GLUIC: I saw her. She was really scared. She met somebody through Facebook. So at that point,
she thought that she was going to do some other business.¶ KELEMEN: When the woman, in her
30s, realized she was being lured into a prostitution ring, she fought back, according to Gluic.¶
GLUIC: She said no. At the right time, she escaped. She fight with this person, and we were able
to get her help. And she was back home in a couple of days.¶ KELEMEN: This story and other
issues outlined in the human trafficking report come at an awkward time for the State
Department. It's been trying to fend off allegations that it covered up some investigations of its
own employees engaging with prostitutes. CdeBaca says no institution is immune.¶ CDEBACA:
There's a zero-tolerance policy for abuse, whether it's of a domestic servant or someone in
commercial sex. If we're going to be talking to the rest of the world about what they need to do
to to make sure that they're not contributing to the problem of modern slavery, that starts right
here at home.
Russia is not capable of solving human trafficking
Reuters ’13 (“U.S. Cites Russia, China Among Worst In Human Trafficking Report” Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-usa-humantraffickingidUSBRE95I1LC20130619, BG)
The U.S. designation drops Russia and China, which already often are at odds with Washington,
in the same category as North Korea and Iran.¶ The State Department ranks countries according
to the efforts they make to fight human trafficking and Russia, China and Uzbekistan all fell to
the lowest level, Tier 3, in the new report.¶ While the Chinese government has taken some steps
to address the problem, such as vowing to work with international organizations and increasing
public awareness, it also has continued to perpetuate the problem in hundreds of its own
institutions, the State Department report said.¶ "Despite these modest signs of interest in antitrafficking reforms, the Chinese government did not demonstrate significant efforts to
comprehensively prohibit and punish all forms of trafficking and to prosecute traffickers," U.S.
officials wrote.¶ The report said China's one-child policy and preference for sons has led to fewer
women in the country, thus increasing demand for women as brides or prostitutes.¶ In Russia,
the government "had not established any concrete system for the identification or care of
trafficking victims, lacking any formal victim identification and referral mechanism," although
there were some "ad hoc efforts," the report said.¶ The citation is likely to further strain the
complicated relations between the United States and the two countries, which already have been
strained by the handling of the civil war in Syria and cybersecurity, among other issues.¶ While it
was not immediately clear what the Obama administration might do given the downgrade,
human rights advocates and some U.S. lawmakers urged strong steps such as imposing
sanctions or withholding foreign aid. They also called on the Russian and Chinese governments
to take action.¶ "China has become the sex and labor trafficking capital of the world," said U.S.
Representative Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican. "Without serious and sustained action by
Beijing, it is only going to get worse."¶ Under U.S. law, Tier 3 countries may face sanctions that
do not effect trade or humanitarian assistance, such as educational funding or culture
programs.¶ John Sifton, Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said China and Russia
have been given several chances to improve their effort to combat such trafficking and protect
victims.¶ "The question for the White House is whether they're prepared to execute the
sanctions," he said. "The question for China, Russia, and Uzbekistan is whether they're prepared
to make commitments in the next 90 days to avoid those sanctions."¶ A GLOBAL PROBLEM¶
Despite pledges to combat such crimes, countries have failed to identify tens of millions of
victims, according to the report, which ranked 188 countries and territories based on their
efforts.¶ Just 40,000 victims of so-called modern slavery were identified last year among the
estimated 27 million men, women and children who are held against their will globally, the
report said.¶ "Despite a growing body of knowledge about victims and their needs, finding them
remains a tremendous challenge," department officials wrote in their 2013 Trafficking in
Persons report.¶ Among the millions of victims, most are women and girls, although many men
and boys are also affected, the report said.¶ Human trafficking can take many forms - from
prostitution to forced labor such as migrant work or domestic servitude - and children also can
be victims. Perpetrators are difficult to track and largely circulate in the private economy,
although cases can involve rebel groups or national authorities.¶ Among perpetrators, 7,705 were
prosecuted in 2012, leading to 4,746 convictions, a slight increase from the prior year, U.S.
officials said. In 2011, there were 7,206 prosecutions and 4,239 convictions.¶ Overall, there were
far more countries downgraded than cited as improving, Sifton said.¶ "This is a much more
negative report than years past," he said. "Russia and China rightly deserve attention but many
other countries have very serious trafficking and forced labor problems."¶ Countries that did
show improvement in fighting human trafficking include the Republic of Congo, Iraq and
Azerbaijan, Sifton said.¶ President Barack Obama last year pledged to step up the U.S. effort to
target trafficking.¶ Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday's report would guide U.S.
action but did not offer details, citing continued "diplomacy and development efforts" as well as
work with victim support groups, the private sector and others.¶ "Every government can do
better," Kerry said in a letter accompanying the findings.
Renewables
Too many regulations – it links to Russian politics
Boute 13 (Anatole Boute, lecturer at the University of Aberdeen School of Law, 5-30-13,
“RENEWABLE ENERGY FEDERALISM IN RUSSIA: REGIONS AS NEW ACTORS FOR THE
PROMOTION OF CLEAN ENERGY,”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=22775390) gz
The Russian Federation holds a considerable renewable energy resource base.1 However,
developing this potential is a controversial issue for domestic policymakers, especially because
of a tradition of comparatively low energy prices, Russia’s position as fossil fuel superpower and
its careful approach to climate change mitigation.2 Since November 2007, the Federal
Electricity Law No. 35-FZ3 mandates the Government of the Russian Federation to promote the
development of renewable energy sources. In 2009, the Government adopted a national
renewable energy target of 4.5 per cent of electricity consumption in 2020.4 However, the
Government has so far failed to create a regulatory framework that would ensure the financial
viability of renewable energy investments. In the absence of a functioning renewable energy
support scheme, Russia runs the risk of missing the boat of the Green Revolution and lagging
significantly behind developed countries and other BRIC economies5 in the field of the clean
technology industry.
Tons of barriers
Boute 13 (Anatole Boute, lecturer at the University of Aberdeen School of Law, 5-30-13,
“RENEWABLE ENERGY FEDERALISM IN RUSSIA: REGIONS AS NEW ACTORS FOR THE
PROMOTION OF CLEAN ENERGY,”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=22775390) gz
An analysis of renewable energy in Russia, in the light of the environmental federalism
literature, raises doubts regarding the current feasibility and short-term effectiveness of federal
support to develop clean energy. Arguments usually invoked in favour of a centralised approach
to environmental protection are weak when it comes to the promotion of renewable energy in
Russia. First, climate change is not a high political priority; federal support for renewable energy
can thus not easily be justified on the basis of its effectiveness to achieve global emission
reductions. In addition, the argument that a centralised approach to environmental protection
leads to improved investment certainty and reduced transaction costs is less obvious in Russia.
The federal government has introduced substantial changes to its renewable energy policy (from
a premium to a capacity-based scheme) and, given the political sensitivity of price increases, has
been reluctant to implement a functioning support scheme.
Offense
Soft Power DA
Having Russia will cost US soft power
Cohen 9 (Ariel Cohen, Senior Fellow at Heritage, “Unrequited Concessions In Chess Is Bad
Policy” September 14, 2009 at 1:36 pm http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/14/unrequitedconcessions-in-chess-is-bad-policy/ BG)
MOSCOW – In meetings with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
and the leading Russian foreign policy experts one thing becomes blatantly clear: the Obama
Administration did not receive any quid-pro-quo for significant concessions it provided to
Russia as a part of its “reset button” policy.¶ Since January of this year, the Obama
Administration has resumed the START strategic arms talks, and is trying to complete them
before the current nuclear weapons agreement expires on December 9th.¶ It looks like it will
abandon ballistic missile deployment against Iran in Poland the Czech Republic, and adopt an
inferior system instead. The Administration also signaled that it will listen to Russian ideas
about reshaping European security architecture and at least for now it will not seriously push for
Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.¶ Moscow will not take a “yes” for an answer. All these
concessions the Russians pocketed, smiled, and moved on to new demands: European security
reconfiguration; additional global reserve currency which would weaken the dollar; and a strong
push-back on sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program.¶ In meetings I attended, both Putin
and Lavrov warned against any military strikes on Iranian nukes while refusing to support a
gasoline sales embargo against the mullahs. “Russia has good relations with Iran; has very
significant economic interests there. Iran never supported any Islamist terrorism [in North
Caucasus], and Russia will be the last state Iran would target even if it gets nuclear weapons”,
says a senior foreign policy expert who regularly advises Russian leadership.¶ When I asked, why
President Obama needed to provide all these goodies while getting nothing in return, Lavrov
and Putin said that they did not view US “reset” measures as concessions. “They corrected
mistakes that the Bush Administration made”, said Lavrov.¶ Putin had harsh words about
“Condoleeza” and repeatedly criticized the previous administration. Not so the current one: he
expressed “cautious optimism”, said that the atmosphere has improved, and that the US
President was in the “listening mode”. “I am a simple man” said Putin half-smiling, but I learned
one thing in eight years [in office] Рdo not criticize the current Administration.Ӧ While the
Russians clearly like the better atmospherics, and somewhat toned down the shrill antiAmerican rhetoric, the Iranians and the Venezuelans, who also received Obama’s “stretched
hand” and, in case of Hugo Chavez, a pat on the back, are refusing to play ball. They, like their
friends in Moscow, are also pocketing concessions while continuing the mischief.¶ The irony of
this is that the Obama Administration sees nothing wrong with such behavior. Time and again,
in foreign policy conferences, including with the Russians, the Obama Administration
champions blame US behavior first, before criticizing the outrages committed by the hosts. ¶
Unilateral concessions by the Obama Administration are interpreted as a sign of weakness, from
Moscow to Teheran to Caracas. Blaming the Bush Administration and making unrequited
concessions is bad policy, especially when dealing with chess champions (the Russians), or those
who invented chess – the Iranians.
Cuba – Militarization DA
Russian influence causes the militarization of Cuba – increase the
risk of war
Lee 8 (Rens Lee, senior fellow at the foreign policy research institute, November/December
2008, “Rethinking the Embargo,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64618/renslee/rethinking-the-embargo) gz
Jorge Castañeda ("Morning in Latin America," September/October 2008) argues for rethinking
the United States' Cuba policy because it has not worked and is increasingly irrelevant. Yet there
are also compelling economic and security reasons for ending the isolation of Cuba now, without
imposing preconditions or waiting for a democratic transition.¶ Current U.S. policy makes Cuba
a target of opportunity for a resurgent and increasingly hostile Russia. Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin talks openly about "restoring [Russia's] position in Cuba," and hints are
surfacing in Moscow that Russia might reestablish a military and intelligence presence on the
island in response to the planned U.S. missile defense shield in eastern Europe. Points of
cooperation under consideration include using Cuba as a refueling stop for long-range bombers
and for reconnaissance ships and aircraft and reopening a gigantic Soviet-era electronic
monitoring and surveillance facility near Havana. A state visit to Havana in July by the hard-line
Russian deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin (a reported former KGB agent and a member of
Putin's inner circle), and the head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, could presage
a new strategic dialogue between Moscow and Havana, even though the visit was officially
touted as investment-related.¶ Also, it is hardly coincidental that the warming of Cuban-Russian
ties and the discussion of a renewed military relationship have followed closely on the accession
of Raul Castro as the de facto Cuban leader. Moscow has historically regarded Raul's brother
Fidel as emotionally volatile, a view stemming from Fidel's erratic behavior during the Cuban
missile crisis, when, in the Soviets' view, Fidel was trying to provoke a U.S.-Soviet nuclear
conflict. With Raul -- who resembles a Soviet-style apparatchik -- in charge, Russia may feel
more comfortable deploying strategic or intelligence assets on the island.
Russia Soft Power Bad
An increase in Russian soft power undermines the US
Shiriyev 13(Zaur Shiriyev, Today’s Zaman, 19 February 2013, Tuesday
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-307507-does-russia-need-soft-power.html, BG)
Multi-track diplomacy occupies an increasingly prominent position in current political
discourse. This has long been an openly stated policy of many Western countries, notably the
US, but recent days have seen much discussion of Russian foreign policy, particularly the ways
in which Russian policymakers are pushing the “soft power” concept versus traditional
diplomacy. Nonetheless, while a Google search reveals that more than 100 million sites
mentioning the term “soft power,” it remains elusive as far as a concrete and universal definition
is concerned. There is no established conceptual framework yet, and the dynamic changes across
countries and regions.¶ Even for Joseph Nye Jr., the Harvard professor who developed the
concept of soft power, the definition is unstable and sometimes vulnerable to misunderstanding.
In general, the conceptual structure fails to draw a distinction between power resources and
power currencies.¶ The questions in the case of Russia are whether Moscow needs soft power,
why and where it wants use it.¶ Since 2008, the Russian government has focused on improving
public diplomacy by establishing cultural centers and establishing a centralized mechanism to
promote Russian nation branding. The building of its soft power capacity began during Dmitry
Medvedev's presidency but was institutionalized as a foreign policy tool in Vladimir Putin's third
term.¶ First of all, for the Russian leadership, soft power is a tool to be used in the realization of
the country's foreign policy goals, a resource to bolster hard power and coercive power [i.e., UN
Security Council membership). In this case, the difference is that for Nye, soft power is the
ability to get others to want what you want; for Putin, the word “want” has a different meaning
here: The target of Russia's soft power mechanism is coerced into doing what Moscow wants.
The Western method attracts other countries to Western values/system and then traps them in
this value system. Herein lies the difference. Russia's soft power denies Western values, or at
least does not make room for democracy, human rights and freedoms as values of the West.
Moscow's argument is that Western countries use values to influence the domestic issues of
other countries, infringing on their sovereignty. However, despite its criticisms that the West
“occupies” universal values, Russia offers no alternative -- Russian soft power only provides a
rejection of Western values.¶ Second, in Russia's version of soft power, nation branding has a
vital place: Russia offers its own national brands to rival Western ones. This includes national
exports, investment, talent and tourism. This could be destructive for economic relations with
post-Soviet republics if Russia no longer seems like a fair and competitive market for export. ¶
Third, Russian soft power is under government control; the Kremlin is focusing on developing
cultural dominance. In an article published on Jan. 23, 2012 by a Russian local newspaper
(Nezavisimaya Gazeta), Putin stressed the central importance of Russian culture for all former
Soviet states, emphasizing that Russian culture plays a central role whereby even “[those who]
found themselves abroad, are calling themselves Russian, regardless of their ethnicity.” Russia is
looking for new tools to promote Russian culture to increase its political leverage and reach,
including across the diaspora. In this way, Moscow can claim its extraterritorial right to defend
Russian nationals abroad, regardless of their status and citizenship. This is what happened in
the August 2008 war with Georgia, when Russia claimed it was “protecting Russian citizens.” To
bolster this strategy, Moscow wants to promote Russian as a second national language or a
regional language in post-Soviet republics, as has already happened in Ukraine.¶ Moscow has
been keen to publicize the results of a 2012 report by Ernst & Young, in conjunction with the
Moscow-based Skolkovo Institute for Emerging Market Studies (SIEMS), which set out 13 soft
power variables, including immigration, tourism, number of citizens in TIME's 100 most
influential people list, ranking on the Times Higher Education World University Rankings
index, number of Olympic medals, etc. According to the report, which evaluated the top 10
emerging economies from 2005 to 2010, ranking them by soft power variables, the top five are
China, India, Russia, Brazil and Turkey.¶ The Russian version of soft power does not seek to
attract other countries; it is rather an additional tool for achieving foreign policy goals, namely
the formation and development of the so-called Eurasian Union, which is being promoted via
public diplomacy tools in post-Soviet countries.¶ The difference between ersatz and real soft
power can be easily identified. In the case of the European Union, the “carrot” of EU
membership has itself been the primary soft power tool as it encourages governments to meet
the necessary legal, economic and regulatory standards to qualify for accession; of course, the
EU is not forcing countries to join the union.¶ The true meaning of soft power for Russia was
clarified a few days ago by President Putin himself. When he met with the head of special
services, he declared that “we may encounter and, in fact, face [attempts to] slow down the
integration work [on the Eurasian Union]. And in that case, a variety of tools of pressure can be
used, including the mechanisms of so-called ‘soft power'.” In other words, Putin publicly hinted
that Moscow is ready for special services to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries
and impose certain approaches if it meets resistance or opposition to the integration process. ¶ It
is debatable exactly what Putin meant in this case, but one can interpret it as almost equivalent
to an order to employ all possible pressure tools they have in their arsenal. And this in turn
indicates that Russia is already starting to use force to encourage integration: a “light force.” Soft
power in Putin's eyes is closer to a light force; all of these various iterations of persuasion and
coercion are being deployed as additional tools to help strengthen Russia in the face of
opposition to the so-called Eurasian Union initiative and all that would entail for Moscow in
terms of radically increased regional influence
Venezuela – Energy DA
The counterplan gives Russia the lion’s share of the energy market –
threatens global energy security and causes oil price volatility
Blagov, 8 – (Independent researcher for CNS; “Russia Mulls Energy Cartels With Venezuela,
Iran,” CNSnews, 29 September 2008, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/russia-mulls-energycartels-venezuela-iran)//HO
Keen to bolster its international influence amid strong disagreements with the West, energy-rich
Russia is pushing for closer ties with other key producers, boosting interaction with OPEC while advocating the
creation of an OPEC-style gas cartel. In its latest move, Moscow clinched a deal with the leading Latin American energy
producer, Venezuela. During his second trip to Moscow in as many months, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez discussed
both weapons deals and plans to set up “the largest petroleum consortium” in the world . Russia is the world’s
leading natural gas supplier and second biggest oil producer; Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and has the biggest proven
gas reserves in Latin America – the ninth largest in the world. The two governments agreed to create a joint
energy consortium that would become a leading player in global energy markets. Chavez said the state-
run Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) would team up with Russian companies to form a global energy “colossus.” Russia’s top energy
companies Gazprom, Rosneft, TNK-BP, Surgutneftegaz and LUKoil, will represent Russia in the consortium, due to be set up next
year. Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller said cooperation with PDVSA would go beyond Venezuela, adding that Chavez and Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev had also discussed the creation of an international gas cartel. He did not reveal more details. Russia first
proposed the concept of a “gas OPEC” in 2002. Although in the years since it has denied plans for a gas cartel, Medvedev said
in July that it remained on the agenda.. Iran, which boasts the world’s second-largest reserves, supports the idea of
turning the existing Gas Exporting Countries’ Forum (GECF) into a more powerful entity. Shortly before Chavez’ visit, Miller of
Gazprom met with Iranian oil officials in Moscow to discuss joint gas projects, as well as an upcoming GECF meeting, planned for
Nov. 18 in Moscow. The two sides reportedly pledged to continue bilateral long-term energy
cooperation. Set up in Iran in 2001, the GECF still does not have an official charter, although one reportedly is being drafted. It
has held half a dozen ministerial meetings, with around 15 countries taking part. Russia wants the headquarters to be located in
Moscow. After a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in July, Miller said both sides advocated GECF evolving
into a permanent international organization. Last April, then President – now Prime Minister – Vladimir Putin visited Libya where
he discussed the gas OPEC idea, although no firm decisions were announced. Libya is has the fourth largest gas reserves in Africa,
after Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt. All four have attending GECF meetings. Western governments are wary of the idea
of a gas exporters’ body that may manipulate prices and could threaten security of supplies. The
involvement in such an entity of volatile or hostile countries would deepen the concerns.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the Georgian crisis in August and the resulting deterioration of relations with the West, Russia is also
looking at strengthening its ties with OPEC, and boosting OPEC’s global clout. Moscow’s past cooperation with the
cartel has been low-key, but that policy appears to be changing. Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin attended
an OPEC session on Sept. 9 and urged greater collaboration between the cartel and Russia. And ahead of Chavez’ visit, Energy
Minister Sergei Shmatko also signaled that Russia aimed to influence global oil prices by
publishing output forecasts and delaying the development of oilfields. Meanwhile, bilateral military
and other ties continue to grow. Between 2005 and 2007 Russia and Venezuela signed 12 arms supply contracts worth a
total of $4.4 billion. Venezuela is keen to buy 20 Tor-M1 air defense missile complexes and three diesel submarines, and during his
visit, Moscow offered Chavez a $1 billion loan for arms purchases. After their meeting in Moscow, Putin also said he was ready to
consider helping Venezuela develop a nuclear energy program.
MURICA
Russia in Latin America is a threat to the US heg
Blank 9(Stephen Blank, served as the Strategic Studies Institute’s expert on the Soviet bloc
and the post-Soviet world since 1989. Prior to that he was Associate Professor of Soviet Studies
at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama; and taught at the University of Texas, San Antonio; and at the University of California,
Riverside,“Russia in Latin America Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood” p. 10-11,
April 2009, BG)
Consequently Russian policy in Latin America is ultimately an¶ American policy. It aims to
instrumentalize the region as a series of¶ countries or even a weak but still discemible political
bloc to support¶ Russian positions against US dominance in world affairs. Therefore Latin¶
American states that wish to challenge America need to rely on Moscow.¶ Thus President Daniel
Ortega pledged Nicaragua's opposition to a¶ “unipolar“ world and welcomed Russia’s presence in
Latin America.25¶ Moscow’s policy is part of its larger effort, to realize this so-called¶ multipolar
world. Thus in November 2008 Lavrov stated that: “We welcome¶ Latin America’s role in the
efforts to democratize international relations in¶ the context of the objectively growing
multipolarity in the world. We believe¶ that these processes are in the interests of the whole [of]
mankind (humankind). Russia¶ is interested in the closest cooperation with our Latin American
partners in¶ reply to the reciprocal interest they are showing.”2“¶ Other Latin American countries
oppose being dragged into the¶ Russo-American rivalry and becoming a battleground like the
CIS.¶ Enhanced trade and relations with Russia are one thing, becoming objects¶ of a new quasicold war is another thing entirely. Aside from Venezuela,¶ Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia, Latin
American countries clearly value not¶ just the opportunity to enter into the Russian market or
buy arms but also to¶ further their campaign to induce the United States to retum to a policy of¶
multilateralism and concem for their security interests.” But they are hardly¶ interested in
returning Latin America to the forefront of East-West¶ confrontation, especially as Russia clearly
tries to utilize leftist anti-¶ American states like Venezuela for its ovxm purposes. Instead, most
states¶ prefer that Latin America be “impervious” to global threats.” As Roberto ¶ Mangabeira
Unger, Brazil’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, has said hi country has no interest in buying
defense systems: “Unlike other South¶ American countries we don’t go around buying [such]
things and we are not¶ interested in some kind of balance of power politics to contain the United¶
States [...] We have friendly relations with the United States, and with the¶ incoming
administration intend to make them even more friendly.”29
Russia is using influence in Latin America to steal US influence
Blank 9(Stephen Blank, served as the Strategic Studies Institute’s expert on the Soviet bloc
and the post-Soviet world since 1989. Prior to that he was Associate Professor of Soviet Studies
at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama; and taught at the University of Texas, San Antonio; and at the University of California,
Riverside,“Russia in Latin America Geopolitical Games in the US’s Neighborhood” p. 10-11,
April 2009, BG)
Nonetheless, Russia does have genuine interests in Latin America. Those¶ interests are
commercial and political: the former being a means to secure¶ the latter. In regard to Venezuela,
Cuba and Nicaragua those interests are¶ more strategic and overtly aimed at countering US
influence in Latin¶ America. Whether visiting the region or hosting Latin American officials in¶
Moscow, Russian officials take every opportunity to make rhetorical¶ declarations on a
congruence or identity of interests with their interlocutors¶ on current issues in world politics,
including construction of a multipolar¶ world order.” In all cases discussion revolves around the
following issues:¶ trade, mainly in commodities but in high-tech and industrial products where¶
possible; energy, whereby Russia either invests in the other state’s energy¶ finns or explores for
resources there; attempts to gain leverage for each¶ sides’ investment in the other’s country;
Russian offers of anns sales and¶ space launch services (particularly to Brazil and Venezuela).¶
Russia’s anti-American campaign appeared to conform with Latin¶ American interests, as a
result of the turn to leftism in several Latin¶ American states beginning around 2006, combined
with growing¶ awareness of China’s Penetration of the region and Latin American¶ economic
opportunities. 6 Latin American economic integration through¶ MERCOSUR allegedly appeals to
Russia, but mainly because it implies¶ support for a multipolar world." This dichotomy between
a professed¶ economic agenda with serious efforts to sign deals with Latin American¶ states and
the increasingly transparent strategic objectives was equally¶ visible during Medvedev's 2008
trip. Medvedev's private talks appear to¶ have emphasized trade opportunities, but his public
rhetoric expressed¶ hopes for Latin American support for a multipolar world.¶ To support this
economic and strategic agenda Moscow has made¶ extensive economic overtures to Latin
American governments. Russia has ¶ offered them all deals with respect to oil, gas, nuclear
energy, uranium¶ mining, electricity generation, weapons sales, high-tech defense¶ technology,
agriculture and cooperation with regard to space. The¶ geographical scope of these offers covers
the whole Latin American world¶ from Mexico, Cuba, and Trinidad in the Caribbean to
Argentina and Chile in¶ the South although the mixture of goods and services under
consideration¶ naturally varies from state to state.
Misc
BRICs Bank CP
BRICS Bank solves – can be set up by 2015, has strong financial
backing
RT 6/21/13 – (Russian Times “BRICS development bank can be ready by 2015 - Russian
deputy PM” http://rt.com/business/brics-development-bank-dollar-072/) DF
The BRICS development bank could be set up by 2015, Russian Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak told
the St. Petersburg forum. Moving away from the dollar and the euro in mutual trade is the key aim of
the initiative.¶ "I think a guideline for the work [of the BRICS development bank] to start is 2015
- that is entirely sensible," Storchak said when asked how realistic it was for the bank to be set up by the previously
announced term.¶ By now the initiative has seen modest progress, with just a political decision having
been taken. "…we are at the stage where each country needs to put together national delegations
and these delegations will hold full-scale talks on all aspects of the establishment of the new
bank," Storchak said.¶ Taking the final decision on financing the bank’s capitalization would be the
most challenging task. That’s because in the current condition of weak growth funds would be
diverted from other projects, Storchak said.¶ "I think that by that time [2015] we can agree on the size of
capital and on the size of paid in capital and most importantly carry out inter-governmental procedures on the
payment of this capital."¶ Proposed paid in capital was $10 billion with $2 billion from each of the five
countries.¶ Earlier in April Storchak said there would be two phases to the bank's creation. In the first, the delegations would
agree on key issues regarding the operating activities of the bank. "The main results of this stage should be presented in St.
Petersburg when a BRICS meeting is due during the G20 summit [September 5-6]," he said.¶ Other BRICS representatives taking
part in discussions as part of the St. Petersburg Economic Forum were also optimistic about the future of the bank. ¶ Indian
Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma also said 2015 was a realistic term for the bank.
He said we should count on the "wisdom of the experts in the BRICS’ central banks that are
working on this."¶ China Investment Corporation President Gao Xiqing also mentioned that wisdom was a key factor for the
project. "If we can make it work I think the BRICS bank will be productive. Wisdom is required
from the participating countries, we need the knowledge and experience of the participating
countries. (…) I consider the future to be optimistic," he said.¶ The G20 leaders agreed on the creation of a BRICS
development bank at a summit in South Africa in March 2012. The development bank is set to become a vehicle
to promote joint investment initiatives and local currencies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa.
The BRICS bank would provide needed funding – bank has three
goals
Bracht 5/8/13 – (senior researcher in the Brics Research Group at the University of Toronto
“Will the Brics bank deliver a more just world order?” http://www.guardian.co.uk/globaldevelopment-professionals-network/2013/may/08/brics-development-bank) DF
At the first Bric summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia in 2009, then member states Brazil, Russia, India and
China expressed mounting dissatisfaction with the inertia in the Bretton Woods institutions (the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) and agreed to "advance the reform of international
financial institutions, so as to reflect changes in the global economy." Russia's president, Dmitri Medvedev, said the main
point of the meeting was to show that "the Bric should create conditions for a more just world
order." This sentiment, to reform the global economy has been a primary point of convergence for the group ever since and a
common position around which to establish a new institution.¶ Nearly four years later, Bric
has gained an 's' with the
addition of South Africa and that new, highly anticipated, institution spoken of in Russia was
finally announced at the 2013 Durban Summit — but not quite as the international community expected it. The
statement was based on a report by their finance ministers suggesting that a Brics development
bank was feasible and viable, inspiring the heads of state of the member nations to conclude: "The initial
contribution to the bank should be substantial and sufficient for the bank to be effective in
financing infrastructure." Anticlimactic to say the least.¶ The Brics members have been able to quickly
establish a common purpose to diversify the current international financial institutions to be more
inclusive and representative of today's economic realities. However, the details on how to do this seem to have been hard to agree
on. Very little concrete information has been released on the proposed development bank. The leaders have positioned it
as an institution to finance long-term infrastructure projects within the Brics countries,
expanding to other low-income countries only after taking domestic actions. The location, leadership,
start-up capital or indeed how the head of the bank will be chosen and other pivotal decisions made, have yet to be determined and
no timeline on progress has been released.¶ This lack of information makes it difficult to gauge what the bank
will and will not do, and therefore difficult to judge the kind of impact it is likely to have on
global development. In its most successful form, it is hoped that the bank will achieve three things. First, it will respond
to developing countries needs as opposed to the priorities of the lending institution. Second, it will
fill any current gaps in financing, including access to finance for small and medium enterprises.
Finally, it will finance infrastructure projects in places normally neglected by the private sector, and
infrastructure projects to support an increased standard of living for all.
The Brics bank leads to a transition away from status-quo national
banking policies (key to mulitlat or transition away from heg?)
Tran 4/9/13 – (Mark, correspondent for the Guardian “Brics bank raises critical
development questions, says OECD” http://www.guardian.co.uk/globaldevelopment/2013/apr/09/brics-bank-critical-questions-oecd) DF
The creation of a development bank by the five big emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa, known as the Brics, is welcome but raises critical questions, according to the head of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).¶ Angel Gurría, secretary general of the OECD, said an important
consideration will be the new bank's criteria for loans, or conditionality.¶ "Will it lend at market
rates and what policy conditionality will be attached to the loans?" he said in an interview with the
Guardian. "What we know about development banking is that the loan itself is the least important aspect; it's the policy related to
the loan – the policy conditionality. Or will the loans be like IDA [International Development Association] loans?" ¶ The World
Bank's soft loan arm, the IDA lends money on easy terms, charging little or no interest.
Repayments are stretched over 25 to 40 years, including a five- to 10-year grace period. The IDA also provides
grants to countries at risk of debt distress.¶ The IDA is one of the largest sources of assistance for the world's
81 poorest countries, 39 of them in Africa, and is the single largest source of donor funds for basic social services in these
countries.¶ The Brics have in principle agreed to create a development bank to provide initial
funding for infrastructure projects worth $4.5tn (£3tn).¶ Plans were announced last month in Durban, South
Africa, where the Brics declared that the bank represented part of a "new paradigm", reflecting a shift
in economic power away from the west.¶ A Brics bank could provide an alternative to westerndominated financial institutions – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and regional
development banks in Africa, Asia and Latin America – that followed the second world war. Jim Yong Kim, the World
Bank president, recently welcomed the prospect of a Brics development bank to help meet massive
infrastructure needs in middle-income countries.¶ Developing countries have criticised the
World Bank and the IMF for attaching neoliberal conditions to their loans, including
privatisation of public services such as water and health, and premature liberalisation of markets.¶ The
development bank would be the first institution of the informal Brics forum, which launched in 2009
amid the global financial crisis, representing 43% of the world's population and 17% of trade. ¶ Pravin Gordhan, South
Africa's
finance minister, said in Durban plans were moving with "a great sense of urgency". Other
developing countries would eventually be invited to join the bank, he said, adding that India had proposed
$50bn of seed capital to get the initiative started, although no final decision had been reached.
Establishing the bank would ensure stable funding – allows for
competition towards established multilateral banks
IDS 13 – (Institute of development studies, May 2013 “WHAT NEXT FOR THE BRICS BANK?”
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Rapid3.pdf) DF
The commitment to launch a BRICS Development Bank (BRICS Bank) has been greeted as a potential
game-changer for global development practice. ¶ However, the BRICS Bank was not launched as expected at the
2013 BRICS ¶ Summit in Durban, South Africa. The assembled heads of state did agree to establish the BRICS
Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) - a stabilisation fund of $100 billion in reserves, and a
BRICS Business Council to stimulate trade and investment. However, the launch of the BRICS Bank
itself was postponed until the next summit in Brazil during 2014. Numerous areas of uncertainty
remain regarding the creation of the BRICS bank. These include location, capital structure, governance structure,
¶ leadership and the criteria that will determine what projects it funds. Other ¶ expected difficulties are obtaining a top
credit rating for the BRICS Bank ¶ and reconciling the BRICS countries’ diverse economic and
political interests. ¶ The motivation for establishing a BRICS bank is to be a counterpart to the ¶
World Bank and IMF, and promote a vision of development driven by ¶ developing countries. The
BRICS have combined foreign currency reserves ¶ of $4.4 trillion and account for 43 per cent of the world’s
population.
K2 development
IDS 13 – (Institute of development studies, May 2013 “WHAT NEXT FOR THE BRICS
BANK?” http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Rapid3.pdf) DF
Changing the future of development cooperation While
the scope of the BRICS coalition has widened quickly,
its focus was initially on the reform of multilateral institutions, particularly the IMF and World
Bank. A BRICS Bank has been seen as a direct challenge to developed nations’ dominance of
traditional fora. These institutions have been criticised by the BRICS countries, and other developing countries, in three
general areas: governance, approach and outcome. The governance structures of the IMF and World Bank are
said to be dominated by industrialised countries, particularly the G7. Quota restrictions and
presidential selection ensures the continuance of this authority. Africa holds only three seats on the World
Bank’s 25-seat board. Several approaches employed by these institutions have been attacked, from
IMF loan conditionalities to the choice of projects financed by the World Bank. There are also
continued critiques of IMF and World Bank dominance of the development discourse, a lack of
participation by LICs, and negative social outcomes. Ideally, the BRICS Bank would reduce the up-front
risk of investment and attract further early-stage finance, transfer project knowledge and reduce project
risk by holding recipient governments to account. At this stage, it is impossible to say whether the BRICS Bank
does indeed represent a challenge to established institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. Yet as an alternative
mechanism for providing development financing it does represent a necessary (though not sufficient)
condition for such a challenge. The remits of a BRICS Bank and the CRA would clearly overlap
with those of the World Bank and IMF. Countries have adopted similar schemes in the recent
past to allow for mutual assistance in balance-of-payments stabilisation. Initiatives such as the CMIM
have previously worked either bilaterally or on fairly narrow regional bases.
BRICS bank key to reducing poverty, improve economic growth,
foster new bilateral relations worldwide
Stern et al. 5-1-13 – (Nicholas Stern, President of the British Academy, is Professor of
Economics and Chair of the Asia Research Center at the London School of Economics and
Political Science. Amar Bhattacharya, Director of the G-24.Mattia Romani, Deputy Director
General of the Global Green Growth Institute. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics
and University Professor at Columbia University, “A new worlds development bank”
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-benefits-of-the-brics-development-bank)
DF
At the conclusion of their summit in Durban in March, the leaders
of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
their intention to establish a New Development Bank aimed at “mobilizing resources for
infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging economies and developing countries.Ӧ The
significance of this decision cannot be overemphasized. For starters, it reflects the enormous
successes in economic development during the last four decades (the BRICS’ aggregate GDP is now greater
than that of the advanced countries when the Bretton Woods institutions were founded) and the rebalancing of global
economic power that this implies. Indeed, the decision demonstrates the BRICS’ ability and
willingness to work together, for their own benefit and for that of the entire world. Emerging
markets and developing countries are taking the future into their own hands – at a time when rich
countries are muddling through their own self-inflicted problems.¶ A new development bank is
clearly needed. The infrastructure requirements alone in emerging-market economies and lowincome countries are huge – 1.4 billion people still have no reliable electricity, 900 million lack access to
Africa) announced
clean water, and 2.6 billion do not have adequate sanitation. At the same time, an estimated two billion people will move to cities in
the next quarter-century. And policymakers must ensure that the investments are environmentally sustainable.¶ To meet these and
the other challenges confronting the developing world, infrastructure spending will have to rise from around
$800 billion to at least $2 trillion annually in the coming decades. Otherwise, it will be
impossible to achieve long-term poverty reduction and inclusive growth.¶ While the private
sector can meet some of these needs, it can go only so far, especially given the nature of
infrastructure projects’ risks, the huge upfront costs, and the high cyclical sensitivity of global financial markets. The
funding gap is beyond what existing international financial institutions can meet – and the advanced countries’ malaise means that
significant recapitalization is not in the cards. Annual infrastructure financing from multilateral
development banks and overseas development assistance is likely to amount to no more than
$40-60 billion, or 2-3% of projected needs.¶ A development bank anchored in emerging markets
and developing countries can help to address this gap and become a powerful catalyst for
change, both in the developing world and – through collaboration and example – in existing institutions. The world today
is markedly different from the world at the time of the founding of the World Bank and many of the
regional development banks. The BRICS’ proposed New Development Bank presents an important
opportunity to reflect these changes, with modern financial instruments, strong governance, and
a broad-based mandate.¶ For example, changes in financial markets (including the large amounts of money in sovereign
wealth funds and public pension funds) provide opportunities for new development partnerships, which the New Development Bank
can help to catalyze and orchestrate. So, too, should its deployment of a wide range of modern instruments enable it to meet the
diverse range of project needs while ensuring adequate risk management.¶ The new bank should maximize its
multiplier effects by sharing and reducing risk through collective action and “crowding in” other
financing; by setting a powerful example in adopting innovative and cost-effective approaches;
and through its policy and institutional impact beyond projects that it finances.¶ While the older
institutions have attempted to adapt, their governance remains out of sync with today’s
economic and political realities. The new bank’s governance structure has yet to be worked out, but it promises to be
more consistent with contemporary best practices. Most important, the New Development Bank will give greater
voice to the perspectives and interests of those in developing countries and emerging markets.¶
As with the outdated governance arrangements, conceptions of development that informed the existing
multilateral institutions’ mandates are markedly different from modern development thinking.
For example, there was no awareness of the challenge posed by climate change, and that all countries (including those in the
developing world) must reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to changes that will be particularly adverse to poor
countries. Likewise, there was no comprehension of the innovation and opportunities entailed in pursuing more sustainable paths of
inclusive economic growth.¶ Of course, the World Bank and the regional development banks now recognize such imperatives, and
the New Development Bank should not relieve the developed countries of their responsibilities.
But, with the shortfall of assistance from developed to developing countries, the new bank can provide essential help
to developing countries and emerging markets as they undertake smarter and more sustainable
infrastructure investment for growth and poverty reduction. Given the need to act quickly – and given the
slowness with which the developed world has been responding – this new institution is all the more welcome.¶ The new bank
can make a major contribution to the global economy’s health by facilitating the transition to
new poles of growth and demand, helping to rebalance global savings and investments, and
channeling excess liquidity to productive use. It will not only be a driver for sustainable growth in the developing
and emerging world, but will also foster reform in the existing multilateral financial institutions – changes
from which all of us, in the developed and developing world alike, will benefit.
BRICs cp
Cuba says yes to BRICS investment
Mahapatra 6/3/13 – (Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is an Indian commentator. His areas of interests include
conflict, terrorism, peace and development, Kashmir, South Asia, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics. June 3, 2013, “BRICS
see greater role in Latin America” http://indrus.in/world/2013/06/03/brics_see_greater_role_in_latin_america_25721.html) DF
Last week witnessed some crucial developments from BRICS perspective. The Cuban foreign
minister visited New Delhi and sought BRICS’ partnership with Latin American countries,
representatives from Cuba, Haiti, Costa Rica and Chile met Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov in
Moscow and sought Russian cooperation for the development of Latin American countries and
Chinese President, Xi Jinping toured Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica and Mexico to widen Chinese
engagement in the region.¶ Like Africa, Latin America is emerging as a hub of economic
development with huge natural resources; it is but natural that it has gained increasing attention
of the world. In this context, BRICS’ engagement in the region, consisting of 33 countries with population of
600 million, has become timely. The establishment of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2011
has provided the region a unified voice, and with Brazil being a member of BRICS as well as CELAC, the BRICS’ engagement
in the region will be mutually beneficial with larger implications for the globe.¶ ¶ Cuban Foreign
Minister, Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla told in New Delhi that “CELAC wants to improve relations with BRICS.” He also
stated, “We wish to seek a higher level of economic cooperation with the India and the other
BRICS nations, which we consider to be valuable.” India is the first dialogue partner of the CELAC, which has
provided the group a format to develop closer relations with India in diverse areas particularly information technology, medical
services and tourism as elaborated by the Cuban minister. He further announced, “We see an opportunity for mutually
beneficial economic relations with India.” The CELAC has a similar format of dialogue with
China, which can be further extended to Russia and South Africa. The CELAC, which consists of all countries of the
two American continents, but without the US and Canada, has recently started exploring economic relations with other countries
including economic power houses of the BRICS. Parrilla pointed out that there are many common values and
objectives between CELAC and BRICS, which need to be further explored. ¶ The foreign ministers
of Cuba, Haiti and Costa Rica and deputy foreign minister of Chile met Sergei Lavrov in the Russian capital to
deliberate on various issues including promoting dialogue, trade and visa-free regime. The joint
communiqué brought out the commonalities of interests in the areas of tackling terrorism,
developing economic relations, promoting democracy, advancing principles of international law
and the United Nations Charter, countering transnational organized crime, and tackling other threats
and challenges. Lavrov stated at the end of the meeting, “Our friends have expressed their desire to make permanent contacts
between the CELAC and BRICS … We believe this is a very attractive suggestion and we will definitely
discuss it with other states that are members of this association.” Russian foreign ministry also
expressed the idea of establishing a permanent mechanism for political dialogue and
cooperation between Russia and CELAC.
BRICS engagement leads to a transition towards multilateralism
Mahapatra 6/3/13 – (Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is an Indian commentator. His areas of interests include
conflict, terrorism, peace and development, Kashmir, South Asia, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics. June 3, 2013, “BRICS
see greater role in Latin America” http://indrus.in/world/2013/06/03/brics_see_greater_role_in_latin_america_25721.html) DF
The BRICS’ engagement with CELAC is not only a factor in promoting multilateralism and
fostering a multi-polar world structure, but it also accrues economic advantages to both the
groupings. While the BRICS members are fast rising economies with huge financial resources, the CELAC countries have also
registered growth despite global economic slowdown. The Latin American countries are also
rich in natural resources. The Union of South American Nations on Natural Resources and Integral Development in its meeting in
Venezuelan capital Caracas last week emphasized on natural resources and their exploration for the development of the region. Latin
America
reportedly has 38 percent of copper, 21 percent of iron, 65 percent of lithium reserves, 42 percent of silver, and 33 percent of tin. It also
contains about 30 percent of the total of the world’s water resources and 21 percent of the world’s
natural forests. Some of the Latin American countries such as Mexico and Venezuela are rich in
energy resources. The huge population of CELAC makes the region a vast market for investment
and also for import from the BRICS countries. The rising prowess of the BRICS will grow with
its Latin American engagement. Though many of the initiatives discussed above are related to individual members of the BRICS, this
adds to the collective sphere of influence of the grouping. As the members’ Latin American engagement takes more dynamic shape, the prospects
of collective engagement as a group can be explored. The grouping can evolve common
strategies in exploring the resources in the region for mutual advantage. In this venture, the proposed BRICS
bank can be an effective tool.
China cp
Mahapatra 6/3/13 – (Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is an Indian commentator. His areas of interests include
conflict, terrorism, peace and development, Kashmir, South Asia, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics. June 3, 2013, “BRICS
see greater role in Latin America” http://indrus.in/world/2013/06/03/brics_see_greater_role_in_latin_america_25721.html) DF
China has started pursuing vigorously its Latin American policy. It has already replaced the US
as the largest trading partner of Brazil and Chile. Its trade with Latin America has grown since
the last decade. From 2000 to 2011, it has grown 20 fold, from $3.9 billion to $86 billion. Chinese Assistant Foreign
Minister, Zheng Zeguang on the eve of Xi Jinping’s visit to Latin America dispelled any notion of competition
between China and the US in the region and stated that China can work with the US in a
framework based on mutual trust, equality and inclusiveness. Xi was received by the Prime Minister of
Trindad and Tobago, Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Besides this Caribbean country, Jinping also visited Costa Rica and Mexico.
China is looking forward to widen its investment in the exploration of natural resources
including energy resources in the region.