Plan: The United States federal government should eliminate its travel ban to Cuba.
Inherency
Travel Low Now
Travel to Cuba low now – travel restrictions and economies prevent
CBS Miami, 6/17 – News organization that specializes in South Floridian and Cuban affairs. (CBS Miami, “Cuba Tourism
Cooling Down Or Just Heating Up?,” 6/17/13, http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/06/17/cuba-tourism-cooling-down-or-just-heatingup/, IS)
MIAMI (CBS4) — It appears
tourism is down in Cuba as fewer visitors from the United States and
the country according to Cuba’s National Statistic Office (ONE).¶ CBS4 News partner The Miami
Herald, helped break down the numbers from ONE and reports nearly a 5 percent drop in April of 2013
compared to the same month in 2012.¶ While the country saw the drop in visitors, the money generated from
tourism apparently did not change with a total of $655 million in the first quarter of 2013.¶ According to tourism experts, the lack
of a change in income is likely a result of Cuba moving away from the attraction of low-cost,
all-inclusive beach resorts and targeting wealthier tourists while also raising prices .¶ For example,
southern Europe visit
editor of the Tampa-based Cuba Standard, Johannes Werner, says the already upscale Paradisus Hotel in the Varadero Beach resort,
is adding a “Royal Service” category that includes limited-access pools and junior suite. “Obviously, the intent is to draw in bigger
spenders.”¶ ONE’s numbers show tourist arrivals decreased from 288,000 in April of 2012 to 274,000 in April 2013. The drop
amounts to 4.9 percent. In addition to a decrease in visitors during the month of April, Cuba saw a 1.4 percent decrease in visitors
for the first four months of this year with a total of 1.2 million people visiting the island this year.¶ The numbers were also broken
down to show the countries with the most visitors. Out of 18 countries, the three at the top of the list were Canada with a 1.3
percent increase, the United Kingdom with 8.1 percent and Germany with an 11.8 percent increase in tourists to Cuba.¶ However,
according to the ONE report, the number of visitors from Spain dropped significantly from 6,359 to 3,384 or 29.5 percent from April
to April.¶ Also, ONE reports Italian visitors dropped by 7.2 percent and visitors from France went down by 6.8 percent.¶ The
biggest plunge in visitors is in a category ONE that lumps together the United States and all
“other” countries with roughly less than 2,000 tourists.¶ Those numbers show a 13.4 percent
drop from 63,248 in April 2012 to 54,771 in April of 2013.¶ According to ONE, arrivals from “other” countries decreased from
258,378 in the first quarter of 2012 to 243,782 in the same period of 2013.¶ Some experts say the drop in visitors to
Cuba is a direct correlation to how economies of the countries from which tourists are
coming.¶ For example, Werner believes the decrease in Spanish and Italian visitors shows the financial crisis impacting those
countries. Spain’s unemployment stands at 20 percent.¶ “This shows the continued weakness of the southern European markets,
which have been historically strong sources of tourists for Cuba,” Werner said.¶ Werner speculates the decrease in United States
tourists is because of the initial wave of interest in travel to Cuba after the Obama administration began easing travel restrictions in
2008 “has flattened out a bit.”¶ In February, El Nuevo Herald reported travel industry officials in Miami said only 45 charter flights to
the island were scheduled for March, compared to 60 in September.¶ Although ONE does not report the number of arrivals by
Cuban Americans or other U.S. residents on especially licensed “people-to-people” trips — tourism is illegal — the total of those
categories was estimated at 440,000 in 2011.¶ In addition to the number of people visiting Cuba, ONE’s report included hotel
occupancy, which saw a decrease from 65.7 percent in the first quarter of 2012 to 63.7 percent in the same period of 2013.¶ Experts
expect to see the numbers adjust in the coming years as Cuba works to draw a new, higher-dollar crowd, and the country adds new
golf resorts and marinas.¶ (©2013 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald contributed material for this report.)
AT: Unrestricted Travel Now
Restrictions still in place –
Baran 12 [Michelle Baran, 8/3/12, “U.S. Government says travel to Cuba is not "unrestricted"” Budget Travel News,
http://www.budgettravel.com/blog/us-government-says-travel-to-cuba-is-not-unrestricted,11924/]
The U.S. Department of Treasury
issued a statement last week that it "is aware of misstatements in the
media suggesting that U.S. foreign policy now allows for virtually unrestricted group travel to Cuba."¶ Indeed,
Budget Travel was among those media outlets that reported that "all Americans can now travel to Cuba, so long as they go with a
licensed tour operator performing 'people-to-people' trips."¶ In January, the Treasury Department expanded its licensing of travel to
Cuba to include organizations that sponsor educational exchange programs that promote contact with the Cuban people. ¶ Following
the news, several tour operators announced their intent to launch Cuba "people-to-people" travel programs in 2012, including
Globus, Insight Vacations and Abercrombie & Kent.¶ But after a flood of media coverage about the opening up of Cuba as a travel
destination, the Treasury Department last week advised travelers to review its regulations regarding travel to Cuba "to determine
whether his or her proposed travel-related transactions are or could be authorized under this or any other travel license category."¶
The Treasury Department said that it
will only license people-to-people groups in which all participants
have a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities.¶ "Authorized activities by people-topeople groups are not 'tourist activities' under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, which
prohibits [the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control] from licensing travel-related transactions for tourist
activities," the Treasury Department stated.¶ Furthermore, travelers to Cuba will
have daily spending limits and
are prohibited from bringing any Cuban souvenirs or any other Cuban goods back to the States.¶ Following
the Treasury Department's updated warning, A&K; put its Cuba program on hold "until such a time as we gain clarity on the
regulations for travel to Cuba," according to an A&K; spokesperson.
AT: Talks
Alan Gross lawsuit have suspended travel talks.
Singleton 6/19 - covers manufacturing and other economic news. His previous roles were with City Limits, TIME.com,
Black Enterprise and PCMag.com. He is an adjunct at CUNY's Grad School of Journalism and also runs journalism workshops for
teens. He did undergrad at Morehouse and grad school at Pace. (Malik, International Business Times, “US State Department Says
Talks To Resume With Cuba Over Mail And Migration In July,” 6/19/13, http://www.ibtimes.com/us-state-department-says-talksresume-cuba-over-mail-migration-july-1314879, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
The new round of migration talks "do not represent a significant change in U.S. policy toward
Cuba," a State Department official said.¶ ¶ Migration talks between officials were suspended in 2011
when tensions heightened following Cuba's 15-year sentencing of U.S. government contract
worker Alan Gross, who Cuba alleges installed Internet networks for Cuban Jews as part of a U.S.
program that Cuba considers subversive.¶ In January
***Econ Lib Adv.***
UQ – No Liberalization Now
Reducing travel restriction is key to Cuba’s economic liberalization. The recent
easing of restrictions by Obama has been shown to have a direct impact on
Cuba’s liberalism. However, the status quo travel restrictions that only permit
familial travel is not enough to liberalize Cuba.
Kaldec 2/6 - journalist and author who has written extensively about baby boomers, personal finance, the economy and
financial education for TIME, Money, CBS and USA Today among others. He has appeared on Oprah, CNBC, CNN, and all the major
networks. His most recent book is A New Purpose: Going From Success to Significance in Work and Life. He has a degree in
Communications from Marquette University (Dan Kadlec, TIME: Business and Money, “Lessons in Socialism: How Cuba Can Become
Relevant Again,” 2/6/13, http://business.time.com/2013/02/06/lessons-in-socialism-how-cuba-can-become-relevant-again/,
accessed 6/27/13, IS)
Havana, Cuba — In this once spectacular tropical city, three buildings collapse from neglect every single day. There has been little
infrastructure investment in 50 years and the average worker earns $20 a month. By almost any economic measure, socialism under
Fidel Castro has been an abject failure.¶ Yet things are beginning to change. Presumed to be ailing, Castro
has handed
power to his brother Raul, who is permitting modest levels of private enterprise and home
ownership. Meanwhile, President Obama has eased U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba. Legal passage
from the States has soared more than 10-fold in a decade. Most of the 600,000 U.S. residents expected to
visit Cuba this year have family there, but conventional tourism is on the rise as well. I was there in January on a people-to-people
visa.¶ Critics worry that tourist dollars will prop up the failed socialist system and prolong its grip. But based on my trip, there’s
reason to believe the opposite may prove to be the case: Spirited
young entrepreneurs are rising from
Havana’s rubble to take advantage of these small but important signs of economic
liberalization. Interestingly, Cuba’s glacial but perceptible shift to the right comes as the U.S. has turned sharply to the left,
raising income taxes on the rich and searching for other means to redistribute wealth.¶ I was introduced to this burgeoning new
economic order through a young entrepreneur I’ll call Javier. Javier did not ask that I not use his real name, but after speaking
frankly with me about emerging Cuban business opportunities, Javier worried that he had made dangerous political statements. If he
were judged to be subversive, his budding business empire could be shut down in minutes.¶ Javier is 31 years old. He’s college
educated, speaks fluent English, and calls himself “ambitious and restless.” He has taken advantage of the fledgling residential real
estate market in Havana, brokering home sales from struggling Cubans to fellow countrymen with money sent from family in the
U.S. and abroad. (Foreigners are not allowed to purchase homes directly, so they do it through family.)¶ Javier has invested his real
estate commissions in a “paladar,” which is a private, family-run restaurant permitted since the early 1990s. Paladares typically are
converted residences; they serve authentic Cuban cuisine to tourists seeking a higher quality dining experience than is available at
government-run restaurants.¶ It took Javier three years to convert his residence to a paladar, where the meal was among the best I
had while in Cuba. Now he wants to use his restaurant business to meet more wealthy foreigners who want to buy a home through
their Cuban families. In other words, he’s looking for business synergies. He’s also bolstering his finances through creative
accounting that helps him avoid taxes of 50% on earnings over $50,000 a year.¶ What could be more entrepreneurial than synergies
and, well, tax planning? Javier strikes me as the kind of Cuban who could become a millionaire if true reform ever comes.¶ Socialism
here has managed to raise the living standards of the destitute, the bottom 20%. But virtually all others have fled or been dragged
lower. Whatever leadership succeeds Fidel and Raul, it will have to confront the basic question of whether raising the living
standards of the very poorest is worth the toll it has taken on the rest, as well as the toll it’s taken on the country’s infrastructure
and even its fertile landscape—much of which is now grown over with weeds.¶ Even dictators want some level of popular support.
Castro earned his by lifting the poorest and stirring nationalist emotions in a historically colonized land. But the physical decay is so
extreme that it is difficult to imagine any new leader succeeding without reinvigorating an economy that has been bled dry. Perhaps
the post-Castro government will consider whether a more open economic policy might lift all boats. Even
the poor benefit
from greater growth, as empowered capitalists have started to show in China.¶ Traveling in
and around Havana offers stark lessons in the futility of socialism. Billboards are non-existent; there is
nothing to advertise except “La Revolución” and “Más Socialismo,” largely self-explanatory terms you find painted on fences and
printed on banners on many city blocks, promoting the government.¶ Castro elevated health care, education, and the arts. But he
did so in part by diverting pesos from sorely needed infrastructure rebuilding. All of Havana is literally crumbling. Stunning facades
have fallen in heaps. Throughout this city, brilliant but severely worn architecture lies masked behind the drying laundry of
impoverished families crowded into space that at one time bustled with trade and the activities of the well-to-do.¶ There
are
jobs for everyone; unemployment stands at less than 2%. But wages are so low that little gets done.
Cuba’s productivity per person ranks among the lowest 3% in the world. A popular refrain heard
throughout this city: “Fidel pretends to pay us and we pretend to work.” The only jobs that matter are those where you can pilfer
goods from the workplace or which give you access to tourist money. Tour guides and artists who sell to visitors command enviable
incomes. Butchers earn more than doctors.¶ The country’s GDP is $60 billion, about the same as the state of New Hampshire.
California alone produces $2 trillion annually. Roughly 5% of Cuba’s “output” is gifts to its residents from exiles sending
“remittances” to family in Cuba.¶ While America’s recent political shift to the left under Obama is in no way comparable to the Más
Socialismo of the past five decades in Cuba, the pendulum swing nonetheless reflects our own internal debate as we have raised
taxes on the wealthy. Our tax-the-rich movement has spurred talk in some wealthy segments of fleeing high-tax states like California
and New York, and of retiring to non-productivity rather than forfeit so much income.¶ That might sound like rich-folk blather, and
certainly there are ample good reasons that U.S. tax policy has moved this direction. Even a hard-core capitalist like Warren Buffett
has endorsed the extra toll on the wealthy. We’re not and never will be Cuba. But a tour of Havana reminds you just how wrong
wealth redistribution can go.
Cuba has poor liberalization now
Borg 12, - (Brittany, “Economic Liberalization in Cuba”, Fordham Political Review, 11/4,
http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/?p=326)//AB
The timid steps taken by Raúl Castro have shown that the
government understands change must take place, as
its current economic situation is stagnant and unsustainable. However, Castro is unsure how to
move forward while still hanging onto the rapidly fading ideals of the Revolution. Nevertheless, even while Raúl Castro
has spoken of liberalization and freedoms (even proposing political reforms that may signal an end to dictatorial
rule), he has kept Cuba’s repressive legal and institutional structures in place. Cubans cannot
leave the country legally without a Carta Blanca (an exit visa, which is not guaranteed) or freely relocate
within the country. There are still repressive limits to free speech and expression. Even after the
hunger strike of Orlando Zapata Tamayo in 2010 provoked the release of over 40 political prisoners, many remain in
Cuban prisons. It is clear that these tactics serve only to keep the Castros in power, and they keep
relations with the U.S. tepid at best. Many critics argue that any reforms will be constrained by the memory of the
Revolution and the goals of its founders, rather than sweeping, generational changes. The remains of the Revolution may put a
chokehold on further political reforms. As Cuba seeks ways to grow its economy, it will undoubtedly see the creation of some
It has no choice but to liberalize the economy in order to maintain its social
spending, but in doing so it will create new social problems. The central government will need to move away
from universal social policy to more diversified programs. Centralized planning has not, historically,
had much success in broadening programs to meet the needs of different sectors of its
population, but this will be essential for the political structure to maintain its legitimacy. In order to address these different
economic inequality.
needs, the government will need to admit that there is inequality, which it may be reluctant to do. It will need to decide how much
inequality is acceptable and what the requirements for attaining it are. The
pace and scope of these changes will
not only alter the future for the country–it could possibly be the trailblazer for a liberalized
market economy with a high level of economic equality. Clearly, Cuba is a long way from a liberalized market
economy, but unlike other economies moving in this direction (China, for example), Cuba is the only one starting from relative
equality. How it proceeds in the coming years as it is gradually integrated into the global economy could show the world another
way of doing things.
UQ- Poor Cuban econ now
Cuba’s economy is poor, restricted, and has little to no freedom
Heritage, 1/10 – (“Cuba”, 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, 1/10/13, http://www.heritage.org/index/country/cuba)//AB
Cuba’s economic freedom score is 28.5, making its economy one of the world’s least free. Its overall score is 0.2
point higher than last year, with a notable decline in monetary freedom counterbalanced by gains in freedom from corruption and
fiscal freedom. Cuba
is ranked least free of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean
region, and its overall score is significantly lower than the regional average. Cuba scores far below world
averages in most areas of economic freedom, and its economy remains one of the world’s most repressed. The
foundations of economic freedom are particularly weak in the absence of an independent and fair judiciary. No courts are
free of political interference, and pervasive corruption affects many aspects of economic
activity. As the largest source of employment, the public sector accounts for more than 80 percent of all
jobs. A watered-down reform package endorsed by the Cuban Communist Party in April 2011 promised to trim the number of state
workers and allow restricted self-employment in the non-public sector, but many details of the reform are obscure and little
progress has been observed. The
private sector is severely constrained by heavy regulations and tight
state controls. Open-market policies are not in place to spur growth in trade and investment,
and the lack of competition stifles productivity growth.
Links – Tourism KT Cuban Econ
American tourism is key to Cuban economic growth
Cellania 6/26 (Miss Cellania, “How Tourism is Taking Cuba Out of the Red,” 10/14/11,
http://www.neatorama.com/2011/10/14/how-tourism-is-taking-cuba-out-of-the-red/, accessed 6/26/13, IS
But the creation of the
tourism sector in Cuba had some progressive aspects to it, as well. As vice-president
ushered in some small but significant reforms that allowed for limited
private enterprise. For example, in 1995, Cuba legalized paladeres -privately owned, family-run restaurants. Two years later,
during the 1990s, Raul Castro
the country started allowing citizens to turn their homes into casas particulares -bed-and-breakfast hotels open to Cubans and
foreigners alike.¶ Tourism has also brought back the capitalist practice of tipping. Taxi drivers, musicians, tour
guides, waiters, bartenders, and bellboys are coveted occupations because they receive tips, one of the few ways to get ahead on
the island. A Cuban guitarist earning just $200 a month in tips makes 10 times the average government wage -far more than most
Cuban doctors.¶ Since assuming the office of president full-time in 2008, Raul
Castro has continued to make small
changes to foster free enterprise due to American tourism. Aside from ending tourist apartheid, he's also
granted hundreds of thousands of new licenses to family businesses. Outside the tourism sector, he's
passed massive agrarian reform, allowing farmers to sell their produce directly to consumers. And now that a few people in Cuba
have disposable income, Raul has made it easier for them to spend it. In the past three years, he's made it legal for Cubans to rent
cars, renovate their homes, and buy computers, cell phones, DVD players, and other electronics -all of which had previously been
banned. Although Cuba is still not a market economy, it's impossible to deny that times are changing.¶ The
American
government has been responsive to the expanding freedoms. In 2009, president Obama made
it easier for Cuban-Americans to send money to their families back in Cuba. Then, in January of 2011,
Obama made it legal for any American to send up to $500 every three months, so long as the money
goes toward funding private enterprise in Cuba. In other words, if you have a friend in Havana, and you want to help him start a
restaurant, all you have to do is write him a check. The embargo may soon come to an end, and not because Americans renounced
the Cuban economy, but because they helped rebuild it, one small business at a time.
Granting tourism will by the next step in helping Cuba’s liberalization
Lee 1/31 [Briana, Senior Production Editor of Council of Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cubarelations/p11113#p3 6.25.2013]
Some U.S. constituencies would like to resume relations. U.S. agricultural groups already deal
with Cuba, and other economic sectors want access to the Cuban market. Many Cuban-Americans were
angered by the Bush administration's strict limits on travel and remittances, though a small but vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban
exiles, many of them based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When
they're
polled, the majority of Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed, and support lifting
the travel ban or loosening the embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization
and normalization," says Julia E. Sweig, CFR director of Latin American studies.
Increased travel between US and Cuba increases Cuban economic freedoms and
democracy
Suchlicki 2/26 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for
Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami (Jaime, “What If…The U.S. Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the
Embargo?” Cuba Transition Project, Issue 185, 26 February 2013, http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue185.htm, Accessed 26 June 2013
the travel ban is lifted unilaterally now or the embargo is ended by the U.S., what will the U.S. government have to negotiate with a future regime in Cuba and to
encourage changes in the island? These policies could be an important bargaining chip with a future regime willing
to provide concessions in the area of political and economic freedoms. ¶ The travel ban and the embargo
should be lifted as a result of negotiations between the U.S. and a Cuban government willing
If
to provide meaningful and irreversible political and economic concessions or when there is a
democratic government in place in the island.
More tourism to Cuba increases Cuban economic freedom – plan solves
Bandow 12 – senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties
(Doug, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” Cato Institute, 11 December 2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo, accessed 26 June 2013
Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic
reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban
society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights
activists have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.¶ Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade
with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in
more U.S. contact would have an impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists
would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate
restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely
priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other
entrepreneurs.”
contrast to China. Still,
Ability to travel freely to Cuba promotes Cuban economic freedom
Kelly 4/14 – Columnist for The Washington Times Communities, and majoring in History & Political Science (Kevin, “Jay-Z and Beyoncé in the Limelight, Embargo
Forgotten,” The Washington Times, 14 April 2013, http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/apr/14/jay-z-and-beyonce-limelight-embargoforgotten/, Accessed 26 June 2013
the lifting of the embargo should not be seen as appeasement of a dictatorial regime, but as an attempt to
provide greater economic freedom to both American and Cuban citizens to travel and spend
their money where they desire.
However,
Increasing Travel to Cuba in the squo will help Cuban econ—case studies prove
Zamora 07 [Randy, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, pdf. April 2007, HOW THE U.S. CAN PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND
CAPITALISM IN A POST-CASTRO CUBAN ENVIRONMENT]
The heart of the U.S. Cuba policy for the past 48 years has been economic embargoes.
Whether their intent was to force Fidel Castro into curbing human rights violations or to
coerce him into capitalism to feed his people, the embargoes have been a dismal failure. The
growing support for engagement strategies is in direct opposition to past economic policies. A 2004 Rand study on Cuba
states: “Free trade and free markets have proven a viable mechanism for economic
development and to lift entire societies out of poverty” .43 In this spirit, many economists who
favor engagement now call for a complete lift of economic embargoes levied against Cuba by
the U.S. An open market is the best way to affect a Cuban society that has lived in the past for
nearly five decades. The U.S. could also grant Cuba most favored nation trade status. These tactics would likely
foster a demand for political change among the Cuban people when coupled with the
immediate end of another long-standing sanction—travel restrictions. Many Cubans rely on
tourism as a source of income. By opening the opportunity for U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba,
the country’s economy would gain a much needed source of revenue while the people
themselves would have the opportunity to interact with Americans face-to-face . CubanAmerican exiles would be an especially valuable asset in promoting democracy and
capitalism to friends and family in the island nation .¶ Critics of a free economic relationship with Cuba feel
that such a policy would take away any leverage the U.S. might have against a Communist regime in Cuba. Trade, however, is
not the only means by which American leaders can influence the spread of capitalism. Fidel
Castro’s history of human rights violations resulted in his country’s expulsion from some of
the¶ world’s key financial organizations. Membership in the World Trade Organization, the Interamerican
Development Bank (IDB), and the International Monetary Fund would go a long way in helping Cuba to build foreign investments to
The U.S. could offer to lobby for Cuba’s membership in such organizations
if Cuban leaders respond to diplomacy and a free market by improving their government’s
human rights record. If, however, Castro or his successor responds to these changes with continued human rights violations,
the U.S. could lobby against Cuba’s membership in these organizations. The prospect of gaining membership in key
financial, political, and economic organizations could prove to be too much for even Fidel
Castro to pass up.
further boost its economy.
Links – Tourism -> Peace
Tourism Cooperation can significantly promote peace, reduce poverty, and
promote cultural interactions
Verma, Sanjay Kumar, 2005 (Sanjay Kumar Verma is a nodal officer and junior editor at the NCUI (National Cooperative Union of India), a major
cooperative in India’s history starting from the Indian colonial era, and a presenter at the third global IIPT conference, “Promoting Peace Through
Tourism: Role of Cooperatives”, http://www.iipt.org/3rdglobalsummit/presentations/Sanjay-Kumar-Verma-presentation.htm)
India Marching Ahead In the recent years India has emerged as a major global power. India's economic reforms have made the Indian economy as
vibrant as ever. A conducive climate for foreign investment has been created. Indian democracy despite its contradictions has given the nation political
stability which has no doubt strengthened the country's developmental plank. However, despite all this India has been straggling with peace as the
problems of poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, social inequalities, insurgency, etc. continue to plague the nation. The strategies
formulated to tackle these problems have not paid full dividends. Tourism as an effective strategy to promote peace has not been discussed or debated
despite tourism sector remaining in prominence in the recent years. Boost to Tourism The economic liberalization in India has given a big push to
Indian tourism. Tourism
is today projected as an engine of economic growth and an instrument for
eliminating poverty, curbing unemployment problems, opening up new fields of activity and
the upliftment of downtrodden sections of society. New opportunities are being tapped to promote eco, adventure,
rural, postage, wildlife and health and herbal including medical tourism. With the increasing number of foreign tourists coming to India every year and
domestic tourism gaining popularity, public and private sector bodies are actively involved in promoting tourism in the country. The
international and regional dimensions of tourism are also getting due recognition. For
example, travel links leading to establishing people-to-people contacts between India and Pakistan are given
prime importance. As a result of this, tourism has been instrumental in softening the relations between India
and Pakistan leading to peace. Peace Through Tourism At a time when tourism initiatives have gained momentum in India, the
situation is ripe for popularizing the concept of "Peace Through Tourism" in a big way through
strong advocacy and practical action. Tourism as a strategy to promote peace by solving the
problems of poverty, unemployment, etc. can succeed if effective inter-linkages are
established between "tourism initiatives" and "peace", and appropriate action plans are
devised accordingly. India has strong community and democratic ethos. Community-based initiatives based on people's participation have
been quite effective in India in solving the socio-economic problems of the people. They have also been successful in building up strong collaborations
based on people's efforts which have led to creation of a peaceful and cordial atmosphere. In fact, the peaceful under-currents of Indian democracy are
evident in the working of community-based ventures. Limitations of the centralized form of planning have compelled the policy-makers to pin their
faiths on such people-based ventures. The paper argues that if
the tourism strategies are geared towards involving
the community-based organizations, they can promote peace in a real way. Cooperatives and Peace
Cooperation means living, thinking and working together. It is working together to learn to live in our society peacefully and harmoniously. A
cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common, economic, social and cultural ne eds and aspirations
through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy,
equality, equity and solidarity. Cooperative
members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness,
social responsibility and caring for others. In an age of declining values, peace can remain
elusive if the values are not well propagated and communicated to the society at large. No doubt,
in this scenario the value-based organizations have an important role to play in peace-building. The
cooperatives have a strategic advantage over other organizations in this respect. The
principles and values of cooperatives are the best guidelines to create a sustainable and
peaceful world. They are intended to safeguard the human rights and enable the members to
practice democracy and enjoy freedom of action. Cooperatives are the organizations which
have strong community roots. They are embedded within the communities in which they
exist. They work for sustainable development of communities through emphasis on values
which create a peaceful atmosphere within the community. Cooperative Contribution to Peace: An Indian
Perspective 760 million people around the world are members of cooperatives. In Kenya 20% of the population is a member of cooperative, while in
Argentina it is over 29%, 33% in Norway, 40% in Canada and US. The
contribution of cooperatives to poverty
alleviation can be gauged from the fact that they provide 100 million jobs and in some countries and areas
are among the largest employees as in Columbia where a national health cooperatives is the largest employer at national level. Worldwide
the cooperative movement has contributed to peace by helping eliminate poverty, sustain
environment, provide employment, and enrich social standards of the people. The value-
based orientation of the cooperative movement has played a crucial role in checking the
capitalist tendencies in the society by creating an equalitarian society through which chances
of conflict are minimized. Today, there are more than 5 lakh cooperative societies in the country with a membership of 23 crores and
working capital of Rs. 198.542 million. IFFCO and KRIBHCO are two cooperative fertilizer giants which have matched global standards of performance.
The cooperative credit institutions are disbursing 46.15% of agricultural credit and cooperatives are distributing 36.22% of total fertilizers in the
country. Dairy cooperatives in India with their strong and extensive network have excelled in their areas of operations. They have ushered in milk
revolution in the country. India is the largest producer of milk in the world. The
housing cooperatives in India have not only
reaped economic reforms, but have also contributed to peace through promoting social
harmony and community living. The cooperatives in India have played a pioneering role in
saving the poor from clutches of moneylenders by providing them credit at reasonable rate of
interest so that they may start economic activities through a long chain of credit cooperatives
set up at various levels. Besides, the cooperatives have convinced the poor that they are the institutions for their welfare, not
exploitation. In the recent years the Self Help Groups based on cooperative principles have
mushroomed in large numbers which have mobilized the rural poor by providing them
avenues of income generation. In India the cooperatives have played an important role in
employment generation. About 15.47 million individuals are employed in the cooperative
sector and the number of persons who are self-employed in the cooperatives are more than
14.39 million. The cooperatives have shown their strength in social sector too. For example,
the sugar cooperatives in Maharashtra have come up in the field of education and health. In
the field of environment, the cooperatives have played an important role in environment
preservation. IFFCO, has played a laudable role in protecting environment through pollution control measures through its plants and farm
forestry cooperatives. Cooperatives and Tourism Considering the contribution of cooperatives to peace and the
value-based peaceful orientation of cooperatives, it is natural that the cooperatives are well
positioned to strengthen the agenda of tourism. Tourism spreads the message of peace. If
tourism becomes a key agenda of all the nations, a peaceful world order is bound to emerge.
The institutions like cooperatives can play an important role in peace building if they are
involved in tourism. In India tourism policy shift towards promoting decentralized form of
tourism in which there is participation of all sections of the society is clearly visible. Though instances
of cooperatives involved in tourism are negligible, the Indian cooperatives have strong potentialities to emerge
as a lead player in the field of tourism. Cooptour (cooptour@gmail.com), a cooperative organization of 55 members, is involved
in mainly ticketing and outgoing tourism. Besides the business and support from cooperative organizations, its professional services has led to
increasing business with non-cooperative organizations. Cooptour feels that it has tremendous opportunities of growth in the areas of international
cooperative tour packages, transport, rural tourism, etc. if there is full support from national and international cooperative organization. The
government has identified Rural Tourism as one of the thrust areas. The strength of rural tourism lies in the villages, and the cooperatives field 100% of
the villages. A large chunk of foreign tourists have a high level of involvement in whatever they do about rural tourism as they want to participate in
cultural affairs, traditional lifestyle, etc. The cooperatives
in the rural areas in India have strong cultural
affiliations. The cooperatives can not only acquaint the foreign tourists with rich culture of the
region, but they can also understand their urge to participate in and experience the local
culture closely. The cooperatives can play a big role in strengthening international bonds of
cultural heritage by making the tourists feel that they are a part of cooperative culture which
is built on peace. Formation of tourism cooperatives for guiding, escorting, maintain local
handicrafts, etc., can generate jobs, and end their poverty. In India the primary agriculture
cooperatives are the strength of the cooperative system in the rural areas. They can promote
rural tourism directly. Their contribution in poverty alleviation along with their emphasis on
rural tourism as a potential area of development can be important in promoting peace. The Indian
Government is already sensitized on the importance of rural tourism, and the need for involving community based organizations in this field. The
UNDP-Ministry of Tourism Project which has been started in India talks about strong community-private and public sector partnership for giving a boost
to rural tourism. The Government has decided to develop necessary infrastructure for promoting rural tourism and has identified 31 villages to be
developed as tourist spots. UNDP is helping in areas of capacity building, involvement of NGOs, local communities and artisans, etc. There is a dominant
view that cooperatives and NGOs are the best agencies to promote rural tourism. Uttaranchal is a top
tourist state in India. The Government is involved in formulating effective tourism strategies to promote tourism in the state. Uttaranchal Government
has launched Community based. Tourism in which certain number of villages/clusters are developed for attracting foreign tourists. Development of
environment friendly tourism development is a focal area of tourism policies in Uttaranchal in which cooperative societies of rag pickers are formed so
that the environment is not affected. Similarly, tourism
leading to self-employment ventures is also noticeable
in Uttaranchal. Self employment scheme in which the focus of project is on setting up PCOs,
small hotels, is being implemented. The large number of beneficiaries benefiting from the
scheme is a symbol of its popularity. Infrastructure is the biggest stumbling factor in development of tourism. The cooperatives
which have stronghold over the rural areas in the recent years have taken initiatives to promote infrastructure development. For example, the dairy
cooperatives in Gujarat have built up the roads, and have come up with schools. The areas in which cooperatives are strong in infrastructure can be
developed for formulating effective tourism strategies. The Government is willing to support the cooperatives who desire to come up in the field of
Cooperatives by practicing ethical
tourism can promote peace and justice in a big way. In India insurgency has been an age-old
problem. For example, Jammu and Kashmir has struggled with terrorism for a long time. In
this respect, an example of Manchester based workers cooperative practicing ethical tourism
is worth mentioning. Olive Cooperative (www.olivecoop.com), a small workers cooperative in
Manchester has been achieve on organizing 'solidarity' tours to Israel and West Bank to meet
Palestinians and Israelis working at the front-line for peace and justice, in their communities
and with national and international organizations. This has useful pointers for India where
workers' cooperatives can be formed to promote ethical tourism. Even in the areas which are
effected by natural disasters, ethical tourism, can be an effective instrument to promote
peace. For example, in the Tsunami hit areas in South India, need was feet for community
based organizations to spread the message of peace. The cooperative in the India due to their
effective community inter-linkages can promote ethical tourism in the conflict ridden zones.
National Cooperative Union of India along with International Cooperative Alliance are already
involved in rehabilitation work in the tsunami hit areas. Cooperative Diversification and Tourism A review of the
tourism by providing them assistance in infrastructural development. Ethical Tourism
cooperative trends in the recent times indicate that cooperatives are aware to diversity in new areas like tourism. The India tribal life is rich in cultural
tradition. Tribal life and tribal products can emerge as focal areas in tourism. Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India is the
national level organization of tribal cooperatives in the country. It has already identified certain regions for promoting tourism. The organization stands
for holistic development of the tribal sector in all aspects and in this regard tourism is considered an important component. TRIFED is planning to start
Tribes shops in all the major international airports so that all the traditional and ethnic tribal products are showcased for foreign tourists. The example
of TRIFED clearly indicates that cooperative sector is aware of the need for marketing its products from a tourism point of view. UHP milk powder is
already distributed in all the pilgrimage tourist sites. The cooperative products have developed strong brands which clearly indicate that cooperative
principles and values can be used for effective business. For example "Amul", brand of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation is a household
name in India signifying milk revolution. The cooperative products spread the message of peace. Successful Model of Cooperative Diversification in
Tourism Eco tourism is a dominant plank of tourism strategies of any country. India is no exception. Tourism initiatives providing eco friendly clean
environment with emphasis on sustainable development promote peace. A successful example of a cooperative in India venturing in tourism
mentioned here symbolizes this trend very well. Medially Fishermen's Cooperative Society (MFCS) in Calcutta is a successful fishery cooperative which
has successful utilized waste water to produce fish. It has a membership of 100 fishermen and around 300 families of fishermen are dependent on the
society. The genesis of the cooperative can be traced when fishermen in Anta village of Howah had to migrate to wastelands near Kolkatta Dock in
search of jobs due to drying up of Damodar River. By using the urban refuge and polluted water of the city, the society now undertakes these activities :
l Improving waste water quality l Using waste water to produce fish, marketing fish, etc. l Providing credit facilities to fishermen, engaged in poultry,
piggery, dairy and cottage industries The society has now ventured into developing a Nature Park which has now emerged as a hot tourist spot in the
city where pollution is a big problem. The Park has attractive boating facilities and an ecosystem has been created that attracts many birds. The animal
Park is another attraction having deer, rabbits, tortoise different kinds of ducks, etc. The society has adopted professional norms in functioning by
indulging in multifarious activities. The production of fish by the society has been soaring high. The example of this society indicates that cooperatives
involved in preserving environment can venture into tourism activities by diversifying their operations. Commercialization of tourism may lead to
neglect of ecology as economic considerations for developing a tourist site may lead to neglect of social aspects, like environment. In this scenario
forming a cooperative to promote eco tourism can be highly successful. Conclusion The tourism scenario in
India is ideal for formulating effective tourism strategies for promoting peace. Amongst the tourism strategies for
promoting peace, the cooperative strategy merits consideration. The Indian cooperative movement which is the
largest movement in the world is best suited for promoting peace through tourism. National Cooperative Union of India is the apex organization of the
cooperative movement in the country. 196 cooperative organizations at all levels are as its members. Being a promotional organization with emphasis
on training, education, advocacy, research, publication, NCUI has worked hard to promote the cooperative movement in the country. It has always
formulated effective policies to promote cooperative diversification. For example, due to strong champing of NCUI, the cooperatives were recently
allowed entry into insurance. The NCUI has also taken initiatives in the new fields of insurance, electrification environment, etc. IFFCO, a major
cooperative fertilizer giant, has already made effective forays in the fields of insurance, electrification etc. The NCUI has effectively popularized the
concept of cooperation amongst the rural population by its Cooperative Education Field Projects located all over the country. NCUI is in a good position
to promote rural tourism in the country. Taking into account the strength of Indian cooperatives in promoting peace through tourism, the
international tourism bodies like IIPT, WTO, etc. must think of forging collaborations with
Indian cooperatives in the field of tourism.
Links – Plan Key to More Travel to Cuba
US travel would be huge
Hemlock 11 – Business reporter covering the business of nonprofits, autos, international
business (Doreen, “Survey: 75% of U.S. consumers interested in Cuba visit,” SunSentinel, 26 April 2011, http://blogs.sunsentinel.com/south-florida-travel/2011/04/26/survey-75-of-u-s-consumers-interested-in-cuba-visit/)//AB
75 percent of
respondents would visit or at least consider a trip to Cuba, if Americans were allowed to travel freely there.
Would you consider a trip to Cuba if restrictions on U.S. travel to the island were lifted? A U.S. consumer survey released Tuesday found that
Another 1.7 percent said they’d already traveled to Cuba, according to the survey of 953 consumers conducted by the Travel Leaders travel agency network from March 10 to
April 10 across the United States. The survey comes as the Obama administration issues new rules that make it easier for U.S. religious groups and educational groups to travel
to Cuba with U.S. government approval. Most Americans are effectively barred from travel to the island under Washington’s nearly 50-year embargo on Cuba. “Culturally and
Cuba fascinates a large number of Americans. Physically, it’s amazingly close to the Florida coast, yet so far away because of
Travel
Leaders experts would welcome the opportunity to experience the country for themselves – the
historically,
continued restrictions for most citizens,” stated Roger E. Block, president of Travel Leaders Franchise Group in a statement. “Like the traveling public, our
food, the music, the architecture, the beaches and the people – and then assist their clients in realizing a trip of their own to this forbidden destination that has been off-limits
for nearly a half century,” he said.
Impact – Extinction
Economic freedom helps solve extinction from species and deforestation.
Bailey 5/10 – award-winning science correspondent at Reason magazine and author of
Liberation Biology (Prometheus) (Ronald [his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was
shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years],
“Economic Freedom Is Good for Women, Children, and Other Living Things,” Reason.com, 10 May 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/10/economic-freedom-is-goodfor-women-child, Accessed 1 July 2013)
Economic freedom is, as Martha Stewart might say, a good thing. That's not just my bias as a libertarian: I've got science on my side. In a new study
published in Contemporary Economic Policy, two of the authors of the annual Economic Freedom Index set out to see how other researchers were using
their work. Specifically, West Virginia University economist Joshua Hall and Southern Methodist University economist Robert Lawson found 402 scholarly
articles that use some aspect of the index, which the Fraser Institute has published each year since 1996. The institute broadly defines
economic freedom as “the extent to which you can pursue economic activity without interference from government, as long as your actions don't violate the identical rights of
others.Ӧ Once Hall and Lawson identified the articles citing the Index, they whittled the list down to 198 papers that use it as a substantive variable in their analyses, usually
trying to correlate economic freedom with some other outcome, such as economic growth, income levels, productivity, poverty, inequality, and so forth. Based on the effects
identified in each study, Hall and Lawson sorted the articles into three outcome groups: good, bad, and mixed. An example of a good outcome would be a 2008 study in the
societies that rely upon individual economic freedoms to
promote women’s well-being have been more successful than those societies relying upon greater political rights.”¶ Similarly, a 2006 study
published in the Journal of International Trade & Development correlated child labor rates with the index's ratings of
countries' openness to trade. From 1960 to 2000, the article reported, “Child labor force participation rates
declined on average by 3 percentage points per decade while trade openness increased on average by 6 to 7
percentage points.” A third study, published in Contemporary Economic Policy in 2008, found that economic freedom correlated with
greater protection against the extinction of species . Insecure property rights, for example, are
associated with increased deforestation.¶
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization that found that “those
Impact – Poverty/Econ Instability
Economic liberalization and freedom solves poverty and economic stability
Vergnaud 08, Director of the Colombian think-tank Instituto Libertad y Progreso, in Bogota
(Andres Mejia, “Cuba needs economic as well as political freedom,” International Policy Network, 26 February 2008,
http://www.policynetwork.net/es/development/media/cuba-needs-economic-well-political-freedom, Accessed 27 June 2013)
BOGOTA -- FIDEL CASTRO'S legacy will be discussed, mourned and even celebrated in editorials, blogs, obituaries and street demonstrations. But the only important question
right freedoms
could not only liberate Cubans from political oppression but help them to build a prosperous economy
and eliminate poverty. Political liberties will not be enough. Economic freedoms and private property are the keys to any
economic development and the debate must start now.¶ Cubans were told they needed to surrender their
freedoms to liberate themselves from capitalist oppression. This is the totalitarian paradox: If
right now is whether his resignation means any real change to the life of ordinary Cubans after decades of economic and political oppression.¶ The
you want liberation, you need to give up liberty . Whatever oppression Cubans suffered before was quickly replaced by the brutality
of an authoritarian one-party regime, or rather, a one-person regime ruled by his desires, prejudices and ambitions.¶ Cubans were also told that giving up their freedoms was
essential to another kind of liberation -- liberation from poverty -- with similar results. Shortly after the revolution, Cuba's economy collapsed. Later, the helping hand of the
Cuban economy was always struggling
to survive: All was revealed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the regime was left to its own devices. Hunger,
poverty, malnutrition and shortages became part of everyday life.¶ Developing countries that insist on
restricting markets have so far achieved only one result: perpetuating poverty, whatever the political model. But a
working model for transition can be found in the experiences of some eastern European countries, such as Slovakia and the Baltic republics and even
some African countries, such as Botswana and Mauritius: opening to free trade, allowing private enterprise and imposing
light taxes, and adopting a flat tax.¶ There are no reliable statistics about the Cuban economy but every indicator puts it among the poorest in
the world. Nevertheless, Cubans are well positioned to make a leap toward prosperity : In spite of political indoctrination,
education levels in Cuba are higher than in most poor countries. If only the Cubans had the right institutions, if only they could live under the
rule of law and enjoy free markets, this human capital would generate prosperity. In fact, if there is a
proof of the inability of socialism to create wealth, it is that Cuba, with its educated population, remains poorer than
many countries where illiteracy is the rule.¶ Of course, opening markets will not be enough: The rule of law is a crucial element, giving
Soviet Union provided some stability and a minimum of supplies. But, whatever the propaganda, the
protection to property rights, impartial courts and the stability that underpins business, trade and development.¶ The first step now, after Fidel, should be a no-strings gesture
from one of the main actors in the Cuban transition: The United Sates should quickly repeal its infamous embargo. It is not true that the embargo is the cause of Cuba's
Economic
freedom is an essential part of human rights and Cubans have long been deprived of all their
rights. The history of the United States shows how solid foundations of prosperity and stability underpin the building of political freedom. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
economic ills, as admirers of Castro maintain, but ending the embargo would create immediate economic opportunities along with a show of goodwill.¶
have shown how political rights are worthless without the prosperity and stability that come from economic freedom. Please don't get it back to front again.
Economic liberalization in Cuba is directly linked to an increase in political and
human rights – our ev is also reverse causal
Borg 12 – Fordham Master of Arts (M.A.), Economics; Fordham Master, International Political
Economy of Development, Economics; Minnesota State University Bachelor, Finance (Brittany,
“Economic Liberalization in Cuba,” Fordham Political Review, 4 November 2012, http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/?p=326, accessed
6/27/13)//IS
As a great deal of political rhetoric in the United States revolves around measures to alter socio-economic inequalities, its neighbor
to the south, Cuba, presents a rare case study on economic liberalization and its effect on equality. With
economic equality
comes not only a fairer society, but also a more stable one, and it is time that the United States focuses on
bettering itself for everyone and not just a few.¶ Economic equality in Cuba stems from the communist system, surely, but there
seems to be more to it than that. Contrary to the beliefs of many, Cubans are able to buy and own more than the limits placed on
them by rations and government handouts. A Cuban, while only recently able to buy or sell his or her home, has always been able to
purchase other luxury items to distinguish himself or herself – even American-made products find their way there.¶ Cuba, despite its
economic woes, has seen significant gains in social indicators. There remain signs of a widening gap between the rich and the poor–
yet, it is not uncommon for the “chauffer” to sit down with the “doctor” at his home for a meal. Gender equality in the country is on
par with that of developed countries and getting better each year. There are no private schools. As argued in an article by The
Atlantic, educational equality equals economic equality, and Cuba’s schools are not only equal: they receive high priority in the
national budget, with over 10% spent on education.¶ ¶ The prevalence of remittances threatens economic equality and does create
some disparity, but often these remittances have been distributed among so many family members, they rarely make anyone rich.
That, however, is changing rapidly as Obama has lifted restrictions on remittances. The cash-strapped island will be reluctant to stop
the currency inflow. These remittances are also disproportionately concentrated in Havana and a few other cities, as these places
have historically had higher migration opportunities. Already, there are neighborhoods in Havana where the houses are better
maintained and the feeling is more affluent.¶ Illegal
economic activity also undermines economic equality
and will play a bigger role as the state further opens itself to tourists. Illegal sales of goods and services
are very pervasive. Nearly every Cuban household engages in some sort of illegal economic activity in order to supplement their
government wages and rations. As in a capitalist society, some entrepreneurs are more successful than others. However, the
clandestine nature of this income generation has generally limited its potential to create any obvious economic disparity between
neighbors. This, too, will change as the tourism sector flourishes and the U.S. eases its restrictions on travel to the country.¶ The
political and economic reforms that have taken place since the 1990s (Over 300 modifications have been made in the last decade
alone) have seemingly put Cuba on a slow path toward modernization. Now, Cubans are free to buy and sell homes and used cars, a
practice banned since the Revolution. While still swearing allegiance to socialism, Raúl Castro has called for an end to monthly ration
books and for the expansion of private enterprise. He has assured Cubans that they would continue to receive free access to health
care and education, but has maintained that Cuba’s economy could not support the ration books and other government handouts.
He had called to lay-off over 500 public employees, encouraging them to find work in the limited private sector, but later postponed
those plans.¶ ¶ These changes have led to an increase in foreign direct investment and tourism.
Cubans working in these sectors stand to see an increase in their economic prospects, whether they be gained legally or illegally.
Already, there is increasing disparity between the rural Eastern part of the island. Legal hurdles remain prohibiting the free
relocation of Cuban citizens to other areas of the country. While a citizen may be free to buy and sell his house, he is still unable to
relocate to Havana without permission from the state.¶ ¶ The U.S. has already started easing restrictions imposed through its
embargo against Cuba and has flirted with the idea of ending it altogether. The embargo has been criticized by the international
community. While Cuba has asked twenty times for the end of the embargo at the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. has
continually refused. If the embargo is lifted, the island nation will undoubtedly see an increase in tourism profits as well as an
increase in foreign direct investment and trade. While this could be achieved through government run and controlled operations, it
is unlikely that the U.S. will lift the embargo without some sort of provision that limits this scenario.¶ ¶ The
timid steps
taken by Raúl Castro have shown that the government understands change must take place,
as its current economic situation is stagnant and unsustainable. However, Castro is unsure how to move
forward while still hanging onto the rapidly fading ideals of the Revolution. Nevertheless, even while Raúl Castro has spoken of
liberalization and freedoms (even proposing political reforms that may signal an end to dictatorial rule), he has kept Cuba’s
repressive legal and institutional structures in place. Cubans cannot leave the country legally without a Carta Blanca (an exit visa,
which is not guaranteed) or freely relocate within the country. There are still repressive limits to free speech and expression. Even
after the hunger strike of Orlando Zapata Tamayo in 2010 provoked the release of over 40 political prisoners, many remain in Cuban
prisons. It is clear that these tactics serve only to keep the Castros in power, and they keep relations with the U.S. tepid at best.
Many critics argue that any reforms will be constrained by the memory of the Revolution and the goals of its founders, rather than
sweeping, generational changes. The remains of the Revolution may put a chokehold on further political reforms.¶ ¶ As Cuba seeks
ways to grow its economy, it will undoubtedly see the creation of some economic inequality. It
has no choice but to
liberalize the economy in order to maintain its social spending, but in doing so it will create new social
problems. The central government will need to move away from universal social policy to more
diversified programs. Centralized planning has not, historically, had much success in broadening programs to meet the
needs of different sectors of its population, but this will be essential for the political structure to maintain its legitimacy. In order to
address these different needs, the government will need to admit that there is inequality, which it may be reluctant to do. It will
need to decide how much inequality is acceptable and what the requirements for attaining it are.¶ ¶ The pace and scope of these
changes will not only alter the future for the country–it could possibly be the trailblazer for a liberalized market economy with a high
level of economic equality. Clearly, Cuba
is a long way from a liberalized market economy, but unlike
other economies moving in this direction (China, for example), Cuba is the only one starting from
relative equality. How it proceeds in the coming years as it is gradually integrated into the global economy could show the
world another way of doing things.
And poverty directly leads to oppression
Hallquist 09 – recently graduated from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI, with a BA in Philosophy. Graduate
student in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame in the fall of 2009. (Chris, “How bad is poverty, really?,” The HallQ, 6 October
2009, http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/10/06/how-bad-is-poverty-really/, accessed 6/28/13)//IS
poverty–maybe not as it exists in the first world, but at least as it exists in the third world–is pretty awful. For one thing, most
people think–or at least often talk as if–premature death is one of the worst things that can happen to you. They
understand what is meant by “a fate worse than death,” but think such fates are extraordinarily rare. Murder gets a special place in the
Most people think that
ten commandments, and questions of causing or preventing death have gotten a key place in ethical thinking ever since: famed ethicist Peter Singer is best-known for writing
about questions like “is it OK to kill animals for food,” “how strong are our obligations to prevent other people from dying?” “when is it OK to make medical decisions that we
know will result in death?Ӧ All this means poverty must be pretty bad, because really
extreme poverty increases your risk of starving
to death because you can afford food, or dying from disease because you can’t afford
medicine or maybe even basic sanitation , or freezing to death because you can’t afford
shelter. There is also a definite correlation, though perhaps a harder to explain one, between poverty and your chance of
being murdered.¶ And death isn’t the only reason to think poverty is awful. Pain is pretty bad, and in the case of every bad thing listed above, there is
an extremely painful if non-lethal version: starving, just not to death; having a horrible illness you don’t die
from; constantly suffering from lack of shelter, but never freezing to death; and being brutally maimed, oppressed,
raped, or tortured, though never murdered. And aside from these positive evils, poverty may simply deprive people of the things that make life worthwhile, like
education or even “time spent not worrying about survival.¶ A corral of these seemingly-obvious facts is that a world where the population is kept in check by shortages of food
and medicine is a much worse place than a world where the population is kept in check by birth control. Thus, we should be glad for the invention of birth control, and sickened
by the thought that evolution may one day cause an innate distaste for birth control to be universal in the population. Or should we? Robin Hanson recently said otherwise:¶
Our ancestors were designed with pleasure and pain to motivate them in a near subsistence world. Lives of continuous torture, where they’d rather be dead, were rare. Our
descendants will be similarly adapted to find joy and meaning in their near subsistence lives. And intense pain may well be eliminated in favor of other ways to inducing the
required focus. Contact with virtual worlds and with a vast larger society will be far cheaper for them that it was for our ancestors, though contact with a real wild nature will be
more expensive.¶ One easy assumption to pick on is the assumption that a life of continuous torture = you’d rather be dead. The evolutionary pressure not to prefer death is a
lot stronger than the evolutionary pressure not to experience a life of torture. A quote from David Hume is relevant here:¶ All animals might be constantly in a state of
enjoyment: but when urged by any of the necessities of nature, such as thirst, hunger, weariness; instead of pain, they might feel a diminution of pleasure, by which they might
be prompted to seek that object which is necessary to their subsistence. Men pursue pleasure as eagerly as they avoid pain; at least they might have been so constituted. It
seems, therefore, plainly possible to carry on the business of life without any pain. Why then is any animal ever rendered susceptible of such a sensation?¶ Hume was using pain
as a powerful refutation of the idea of a benevolent creator, but while the existence of pain does come into any such conflict with evolutionary theory, Hume’s question is still a
puzzle for evolutionary theory. There’s no particular reason for evolution to have settled on a particular pain-pleasure system for motivating animals, no reason for it not to
settle on a system of mostly pleasure, but also no reason for it to settle on a system of mostly pain. And it may be that in fact the latter is what has happened–but we don’t see
how horrible the situation is, because evolution has programmed us not to kill ourselves under mere ordinary horribleness.¶ And it does in fact seem that ordinary horribleness
is quite horrible. The quote above is from the two chapters (X and XI) of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which put all Hume’s literary talents to describing just
how awful the pains that many people of Hume’s day felt were–a must read for thinking about this issue. Spend enough time reading literature from before modern prosperity
came to be taken for granted, and you’ll start to feel like such descriptions are all over the place. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stewart Mill conceded to critics of his theory
that moments of really great pleasure tend to be brief, and few escape the really awful calamities that life can visit upon us. Bertrand Russell once wrote that in his day,
advances in technology were just beginning to make life tolerable. I have never actually read Malthus, but I can imagine what he said about this issue.¶ I am tempted by
Hanson’s alternative explanations for why rich people like me are so horrified by poverty, and on a theoretical level I can think of arguments for why we should care less than we
when I think about the basic reasons why poverty is so horrible, and about
the way people closer in touch with it have written about it, such explanations (to quote Hume again)
appear to me so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further.
do about premature death. But
Impact – Human Rights
Liberalism is a precursor for human rights
Watson 12 - a British Politician, served as a Member of the European Parliament for South West England since 1994
and was the leader of the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party 2002–2004 and the first leader of the Group of
the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe 2004–2009. Since 2011, he has been the President of the European Liberal
Democrat and Reform Party. (Graham, “Interview: Graham Watson Rethinking Liberalism and Human Rights,” Liberal International,
2012, http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=1492, accessed 6/26/13)//IS
the whole basis of philosophy of
freedom of an individual . Therefore, if anything that
In what sense are human rights central to liberalism? ¶ Watson: ¶ It seems to me that a liberal approach to life,
classical liberalism revolves around
the dignity, and
is damaging to individual freedom or individual dignity is an attack on liberal ideas . And that is why,
although you will find people from other political ideologies also defending human rights those who always consistently and actively
defend human rights are liberals. ¶ What distinguishes liberal from other ideologies?¶ Watson:¶ I think we achieved a huge amount in the last
two hundreds years in spreading and in deepening the concept of human rights. If you go back to the earliest thinking about human rights, it was very limited. Our ideas of
human rights now are very much board, and have even let to debate among liberals about how board human rights can be considered. For example, some people would argue
that a women's right to have abortion is a human rights. Some would argue that it is not. But the fact that we are in the territory that we have moved the human rights so far
that have told us that we have huge success in this debate. It is because we have been so successful, that you find people from other political families defending and promoting a
human rights agenda which is no longer a sole liberal agenda. It is an agenda shared by others.¶ How much have liberals achieved in promoting human rights in recent history?¶
Watson: ¶ If one looks the slightly more recent history of human rights, you will find liberals behind the International Declaration on Human Rights, and you will find liberals
active in the development of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on Economic and Social Rights. If one takes another
more recent and equally powerful example, the campaign to establish an International Criminal Court for those guilty of crimes against humanity was a liberal led initiative. W
can also find all examples all over the world of liberals in governments vastly improving the “Rights Culture” in the countries they govern. ¶ ¶ What are the most urgent human
right issues that should be addressed?¶ Watson: ¶ Liberals need to have a further debate about how widely we define human rights. I think it is possible that we risk the
dimension the campaign for basic human rights, if we widen our definition to far and therefore lose the support of some of those who will otherwise come with us. If you look
You can see in developed democracies, a well-establishment rights culture, and a
debate about new rights, we ignore that our peril the fact that many of the world citizens live
without even basic rights. Whether we are fighting for the rights of freedom of speech and assembly in Singapore or in the People's Republic of China, or
whether we are arguing about the rights to basic education and health care in Africa or in some parts of Asia. The campaign to achieve basic
rights for a large percentage of humanity should be in my mind take precedence over the camping to extend our conception of rights in
across the world today.
developed democracies. The two are not neutrally exclusive. But let us remember that many people have very few rights.
The coercive measures of a non-liberalized economy and a unilateral force
destroy human rights
Voltaire Network 12 – commenting on recent UN legal activity, an international non-profit
organization, based in Paris. It stated aim is the promotion of freedom and secularism, that is separation of church and
state, faith and politics. (Voltaire Network, “UN Condemns Unilateral Coercive Measures,” 20 December 2012,
http://www.voltairenet.org/article172190.html, accessed 6/27/13)
The
UN General Assembly condemned the implementation of unilateral economic coercive measure s with extraterritorial
effects,
considering them an instrument of political or economic pressure against any country
and their inhabitant’s rights .¶ The rejection was adopted yesterday by 137 votes in favor and 54 against, with no abstentions.¶ Among the votes
against are the United States, Israel and almost all European Union countries, but none from Latin America and the Caribbean or Africa.¶ The text is titled Human Rights
and Unilateral Coercive Measures, and states that the condemned actions were intended to prevent countries
from exercising their right to freely determine their political, economic and social
development.¶ Such measures also preclude the full realization of economic and social development of the population of the affected countries, harm their
welfare and create obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights, including health, food, medical care and necessary social services.¶ The text also warns that food and
medicines should not be used as an instrument of political pressure.¶ It also rejects the extraterritorial nature of
unilateral coercive measures for threatening the sovereignty of States and urges not to recognize or implement them, but to counteract them with administrative or legislative
decisions.
Impact – Value to Life
Only an autonomous life free from coercion is worth living.
Moraro 8 – moral and political philosopher, working mainly in the area of democracy and
political obligation (Piero, “Autonomy and Autonomy-based Duties: an argument for disobedience?,” University of Stirling, 2008,
http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0016/15631/Moraro_paper.doc, Accessed 1 July 2013)
Raz identifies three ‘conditions of autonomy’ that must be fulfilled for the agent to be able to lead an autonomous life: (a) appropriate mental abilities, (b) adequate range of
options, and (c) independence. By (a) Raz means that the autonomous agent must be in possession of a minimum of rationality, i.e. the mental faculties to set one’s own goals,
‘autonomy’ requires the
availability of an adequate range of options to choose from. In order to understand this point, we should have a glimpse at Raz’s notion of wellbeing: a person’s well-being depends on her being the maker or the author of her own life, and on the
availability to her of a multiplicity of valuable options. There is a direct connection, therefore, between
having a valuable life and being autonomous. A life in which an agent is not in the condition to choose would be much less valuable than
one in which s/he is. To be autonomous a person must not only be given a choice, but s/he must be
given an adequate range of choices. Someone whose decisions are extracted from him/her
through coercion is not acting autonomously: equally, someone who is paralysed and cannot take advantage of the options available to
him/her lacks autonomy. If the autonomous life is about choosing, then, guaranteeing someone’s autonomy entails providing the individual with
the ability to comprehend the means required to realize them, etc. More interesting in (Raz’s account is b): the idea that
an adequate range of options from which to choose. By ‘adequate’ Raz emphasizes not the ‘number’, but rather the ‘variety’: “[a] choice between hundreds of identical and
identically situated houses is no choice, compared with a choice between a town flat and a suburban house”. Furthermore, ‘variety’ in the strict sense is not enough either:
choosing between a variety of morally repugnant actions does not qualify as ‘autonomous choice’. If I am faced with a choice between applying for a PhD at the university, or
killing someone, then I am not autonomously choosing what to do: for Raz, the choice between good and evil is no choice at all.
AT: Ban Key to Regime Change
Continuing travel ban won’t cause regime change
Warren 10 – Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (Vincent, “Open Letter to
President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba,” Center for Constitutional Rights, 26 August 2010,
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf, Accessed 1 July 2013)
While we support the Administration's changes concerning remittances last year as a matter of principle and policy, the reality remains that a portion of that multi-million dollar
to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travelrelated transactions remains irrational and unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing
regime change within the country.
export to the island nation inevitably returns to the Cuban state. Thus,
***Democracy Adv.***
Uniqueness
Democracy Low
No democracy now
FCO 13 (Foreign Commonwealth Office Analyzes human rights infractions in third world countries worldwide, April
2013, “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2012 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report”,
http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/2012-Human-Rights-and-Democracy.pdf)
There were some encouraging
improvements in the human rights situation in Cuba in 2012, although there
remain significant areas of concern. The announcement of the lifting of travel restrictions
represents a major advance for freedom of movement. The Cuban government’s ongoing economic reform
programme opened up further economic freedoms and provided greater space for debate on economic issues, while respect for
social and cultural rights, including free universal access to healthcare and education, were maintained. Religious freedom and
government
continued to silence dissent and deny basic civil and political rights. Of particular concern was the
continued use of politically motivated short-term detentions throughout the year. Media
freedom and Internet access remain heavily restricted, and the judiciary is tightly controlled by
the ruling Communist Party. There is one internationally recognised prisoner of conscience in Cuba. Our aims in 2012
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights continued to follow a positive trajectory. However, the
were to encourage further progress on political and economic freedoms, and we continued to engage with the Cuban government,
human rights defenders, opposition activists and broader civil society (including the Catholic Church) to encourage positive change
on human rights. The British Ambassador in Cuba has regularly raised human rights concerns with the Cuban authorities. Our
Embassy met opposition figures within Havana and across the country and regularly monitored demonstrations. We played an active
role in the EU, in Brussels, and Havana, arguing for a robust but constructive position on human rights. In 2013, we will continue to
promote progress on human rights with an active and balanced approach, both bilaterally and through the EU. We will maintain our
engagement with key actors and continue to raise concerns with the Cuban government within the context of our wider political
engagement. We will maintain a dialogue with opposition activists and continue to monitor peaceful opposition demonstrations. We
expect that the government will continue to expand economic freedoms and tackle corruption. Greater freedom to travel should in
Cuban
government is likely to continue to restrict basic civil and political rights as it seeks to prevent
public protest. Despite some positive signals from the Cuban leadership about media and
judicial reform, any change is likely to be incremental. Elections Cuba is a one-party state governed by the
principle allow more Cubans to work and study abroad and return with new ideas, knowledge and capital. But the
Cuban Communist Party. The President is elected by the National Assembly. Local elections took place in autumn 2012 and
successful candidates will elect delegates to the National Assembly in 2013. While Communist Party membership is not a legal
requirement to stand, in practice prospective candidates need the approval of party representatives, and genuine
opposition
candidates could not participate. Freedom of expression and assembly Restrictions on freedom
of expression and assembly remained throughout 2012. Independent trade unions are not
permitted and there is no legal right to strike. Short-term 153 detentions of those expressing anti-government
views were increasingly used to intimidate activists and prevent them attending planned anti-government demonstrations, which
are banned. The Havana-based human rights monitoring group Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation
reported over 6,000 such detentions in 2012, compared with 4,000 in 2011. These figures are impossible to verify. More
encouragingly, in 2012, the space for debate and criticism of government policy in relation to economic and social issues continued
to expand, partially reflecting President Raúl Castro’s call at the Cuban Communist Party Conference on 28 January for more open
debate and a more objective press. Intellectuals, artists and “accepted” non-governmental institutions have all been able to speak
more openly. The Catholic Church hosted a conference with Cuban Americans and opposition activists in April to discuss the
economic reforms. Some critical letters about government economic policy from members of the public have also been printed in
state media. Nevertheless, media freedom remained heavily constrained. Cuba ranked 167 out of 179 in the Reporters Without
Borders 2011– 2012 World Press Freedom Index, while on World Press Freedom Day on 3 May, the Committee to Protect Journalists
cited Cuba as the ninth most censored state in the world. Access to the Internet remained tightly controlled. The
National Statistics Office announced in June that Internet access had increased to 2.6 million users (23% of the population).
However, this reflects access to a Cuban intranet consisting of email and select websites. A Freedom House report estimated real
Internet penetration at 5%.
The main obstacles to greater access are lack of Internet access points, the
prohibitive cost ($8 an hour, while average wages are $20 a month) and strict control over who can have the
Internet at home. Those with access relied on the black market. One obstacle was removed in 2012,
however, when an expensive charge to receive telephone calls was lifted, further easing private communications. Human rights
defenders The Cuban authorities continued to harass human rights defenders throughout 2012 with short-term detentions, house
arrests, fines and threats. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, over 1,000 opposition
activists were arrested in March, many pre-emptively detained in connection with the Pope’s visit. Human Rights Day on 10
December and the 24 July funeral of leading opposition activist Oswaldo Payá, who died in a car crash, also gave rise to spikes in the
detention figures. Payá’s contribution to improving human rights in Cuba was recognised in a statement by the former FCO Minister
of State for Latin America, Jeremy Browne. Notable individual shortterm detentions during 2012 included those of leading Cuban
blogger Yoani Sanchez, Hablemos Press director Roberto de Jesus Guerra Perez and Antonio Rodriles, who runs a forum encouraging
debate on social, cultural, economic and political issues. By the end of 2012, one internationally recognised prisoner of conscience
remained in custody in Cuba. Brothers Antonio Michel Lima Cruz and Marcos Máiquel Lima Cruz were detained on Christmas Day
2010 and charged with public disorder and insulting national symbols after listening to music criticising the lack of free expression in
Cuba and dancing with the Cuban flag. They were sentenced to two and three years in prison respectively. Antonio was released on
24 October but Marcos remains in prison. Two other Amnesty 154 International prisoners of conscience, Yasmin Conyedo Riverón
and Yusmani Rafael Álvarez Esmori, were released on bail on 5 April. Amnesty also adopted José Daniel Ferrer Garcia, Ivonne
Malleza Galano, Ignacio Martínez Montejo and Isabel Haydee Álvarez as prisoners of conscience in 2012, but all have now been
released.
Poor Human Rights
Cuba has major human rights abuses
HRW, 4/18/13 (Human Rights Watch is an international non-governmental organization that conducts research and
advocacy on human rights, “Universal Periodic Review: HRW Submission on Cuba”,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/18/universal-periodic-review-hrw-submission-cuba)
Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of
political dissent. In 2012 the government of Raúl Castro continued to enforce political conformity using
short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced
exile. During its first UPR review, Cuba rejected all recommendations addressing the arbitrary detentions
of political prisoners, the lack of protection of human rights defenders, and restrictions on
freedom of expression. Since then, Human Rights Watch has continued documenting cases of serious abuses of these rights. The Cuban
Introduction
government released dozens of political prisoners in 2010 and 2011 on the condition that they accept exile in exchange for their freedom. Yet while the
overall number of political prisoners has declined, the
government has increasingly relied upon arbitrary arrests
and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to
assemble and move about freely. Meanwhile, the government continues to sentence dissidents to
long-term prison sentences in closed, summary trials, or hold them for extended periods
without charge. Political Prisoners In line with the rejection by the Cuban government of the recommendation to “halt the prosecution of
citizens who are exercising the rights guaranteed under articles 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the UDHR,” Cubans who dare to criticize
the government risk criminal charges – which is in clear contradiction with Cuba’s
international human rights obligations – and will not enjoy due process guarantees, such as
the right to fair and public hearings by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. In
practice, courts are “subordinated” to the executive and legislative branches, thus denying
meaningful judicial protection. Political prisoners’ are routinely denied parole after
completing the minimum required sentence as punishment for refusing to participate in
ideological activities such as “reeducation” classes. Dozens of political prisoners remain in
Cuban prisons, according to respected human rights groups on the island. These groups
estimate there are many more political prisoners whose cases they cannot document because
the government does not allow independent national or international human rights groups to
access its prisons. Brothers Marcos Maikel and Antonio Michel Lima Cruz—members of a human rights group in Holguín called Pedro Luis
Boitel—were arrested in December 2010 and sentenced in a closed, summary trial in May 2011 to three and two years in prison, respectively. Accused
of insulting national symbols and causing public disorder, their family said the charges were fabricated to punish the brothers for their human rights
work. Antonio Michel has developed a serious kidney infection and prostate condition during his imprisonment, ailments that his family attributes to
unhygienic prison conditions. They said his suffering has been exacerbated by inadequate medical treatment. Both men are still in prison. Rogelio
Tavío López—a member of a dissident group called the Unión Patriótica de Cuba—was detained on March 2, 2012, in Guantanamo province after
organizing a gathering to protest the detention of a fellow dissident and to call for greater political freedoms. His wife said he was arrested without
judicial orders and has since been held in a prison in Guantanamo province without being brought to trial. Arbitrary Detentions and Short-Term
In addition to political convictions, the Cuban government has increasingly relied on
arbitrary detention since the previous UPR in 2009 to harass and intimidate individuals who
exercise their fundamental rights. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National
Reconciliation—an independent human rights group that the government views as illegal—
received reports of 2,074 arbitrary detentions by security forces in 2010, 4,123 in 2011, and
5,105 from January to September of 2012. The detentions are often used preemptively to
prevent individuals from participating in meetings or events viewed as critical of the
government, such as peaceful marches, meetings to discuss politics, or human rights
workshops. Many dissidents are subjected to beatings and threats as they are detained, even
though they make no attempts at resistance. Security officers virtually never present arrest
orders to justify the detentions and threaten detainees with criminal sentences if they
continue to participate in “counterrevolutionary” activities. Victims of such arrests are held
incommunicado for a period ranging from several hours to several days, often at police
Imprisonment
stations. In some cases, they are given an official warning, which prosecutors may later use in
criminal trials to show a pattern of delinquent behavior. Dissidents said these warnings are
aimed at discouraging them from participating in future activities seen as critical of the
government. Their families are not notified that they have been detained, generating a sense
of terror from not knowing where they are. More than 80 women from Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White)—a human rights
group consisting of wives, mothers, and daughters of political prisoners—were detained on March 18 when they attempted to stage a peaceful
procession on the anniversary of a 2003 crackdown by the government. On July 24, at least 40 people were arbitrarily detained in Havana at the funeral
of dissident Oswaldo Payá, who died in a car accident. Police officers broke up the nonviolent procession and beat participants despite the fact that
they offered no resistance. The detainees were taken to aprison encampment known as Tarara, where they were held incommunicado for
In line with its rejection of the
recommendation to “lift restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and association,
including restrictions on the media that are not in accordance with ICCPR,” the government
maintains a media monopoly on the island, which ensures that freedom of expression is
virtually nonexistent. This clearly contradicts Cuba’s international human rights obligations.
The government controls all media outlets in Cuba and access to outside information is highly
restricted. Only a tiny fraction of Cubans have the chance to read independently published
articles and blogs because of the high cost of and limited access to the internet. Although a
small number of independent journalists and bloggers manage to write articles for foreign
websites or independent blogs, they must publish their work through back channels, such as
illegal internet connections. Independent journalists and bloggers are subjected to public
smear campaigns, short and long-term detention, and physical abuse by police and state
security agents. Oftentimes their cameras, recorders, and other equipment are confiscated by authorities. According to the independent
approximately 30 hours before being released without charge. Freedom of Expression
group of journalists Hablemos Press, 19 journalists were arbitrarily detained in September 2012, including Calixto Ramón Martínez Arias. Martínez, who
had previously reported on issues critical of the government and was detained on September 16 while reporting a story. At the time of this writing, he
remains in detention without charge. The Cuban government uses selective allocations of press credentials and visas, which are required by foreign
journalists to report from the island, to control coverage of the island and punish media outlets seen as overly critical of the regime. For example, in
anticipation of the March 2012 visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Cuba, the government denied visas to journalists from El Pais and El Nuevo Herald,
newspapers whose reporting it had previously criticized for presenting a negative image of Cuba. Human Rights Defenders
In line with its rejection of
the recommendation to “implement legal safeguards to ensure protection of human rights defenders against abuse of provisions for criminal
prosecution,” the
Cuban government has continued to refuse to recognize human rights monitoring
as a legitimate activity and to deny legal status to local human rights groups. Meanwhile,
government authorities harass, assault and imprison human rights defenders who attempt to
document abuses. In the weeks leading up to and during the Pope’s visit to Cuba, authorities detained, beat, and threatened hundreds of
dissidents. On March 14, 2012, security officers assaulted and arrested 13 people who had sought refuge in a Catholic church in Havana while
demanding respect for human rights. Leticia Ramos—a member of Ladies in White—was arbitrarily detained three times in the weeks preceding the
Pope’s visit and was beaten so severely by police that they broke one of her ribs, she said. She was warned not to try to travel to Havana for the Pope’s
The Cuban government forbids the country's citizens from
leaving or returning to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is often denied
to those it views as “detractors.” For example, acclaimed blogger Yoani Sánchez, who has been critical of the government, has been
visit. Travel Restrictions and Family Separation
denied the right to leave the island at least 19 times since 2008, including in February 2012, after she had been granted a visa to travel to Brazil for a
The Cuban government uses forced family separation to punish defectors and
silence critics. The government frequently bars citizens engaged in authorized travel from
taking their children with them overseas, essentially holding children hostage to guarantee
their parents' return. The government restricts the movement of citizens within Cuba by
enforcing a 1997 law known as Decree 217. Designed to limit migration to Havana, the decree
requires Cubans to obtain government permission before moving to the country's capital. It is
often used to prevent dissidents traveling to Havana to attend meetings and to harass
dissidents from other parts of Cuba who live in the capital. Forced Exile The death of political prisoner Orlando
documentary screening.
Zapata Tamayo in February 2010, which followed his 85-day hunger strike, and the subsequent hunger strike by dissident Guillermo Fariñas created
pressure on the Cuban government to release the remaining political prisoners from the “group of 75” (the 75 human rights defenders, journalists, and
other dissidents who had been sentenced to long prison terms in a massive crackdown in 2003). Yet while the final prisoners from the “group of 75”
were released in 2011, the majority were forced to choose between ongoing prison sentences and forced exile. Since that time, dozens of other
prominent dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders have been forced to choose between exile and ongoing harassment or even
imprisonment. Prison Conditions
Before implementing the accepted recommendations made by China and Iran to “share experiences and good
practices regarding the treatment of prisoners,” the Cuban government should address the dire conditions of its overcrowded, unhygienic, and
unhealthy prisons, which are currently leading to extensive malnutrition and illness. Prisoners
who criticize the government,
refuse to participate in ideological "reeducation," or engage in hunger strikes and other forms
of protest are often subjected to extended solitary confinement, beatings, restrictions on
family visits, and denial of medical care. Prisoners have no effective complaint mechanism to
seek redress, giving prison authorities total impunity. On January 19, 2012, Wilman Villar Mendoza died after a 50-day
hunger strike in prison, which he initiated to protest his unjust trial and inhumane prison conditions. Villar Mendoza had been detained in November
2011 in Contramaestre after participating in a peaceful demonstration calling for greater political freedoms. He was sentenced to four years in prison
for “contempt” in a trial in which he had no lawyer and which lasted less than an hour. After beginning his hunger strike, he was stripped naked and
placed in solitary confinement in a cold cell. He was transferred to a hospital in Santiago de Cuba only days before he died. The United States Embargo
The United States' economic embargo on Cuba, in place for more than half a century, continues to impose indiscriminate hardship on the Cuban people
and has done nothing to improve human rights in Cuba. Recommendations to the Cuban Government in Accordance with Established Principles of
International Human Rights Law Immediately release all political prisoners. Cease short-term detentions, threats, harassment, acts of repudiation, and
other repressive measures against human rights defenders, independent journalists, and other dissidents. Respect the due process rights of detainees,
including the right to access legal counsel, the right to be brought before a judge without delay, and the right to a fair trial in cases where there are
criminal proceedings. Allow individuals to assemble and express opinions, irrespective of whether they are deemed critical of the government.
Eliminate the crime of social dangerousness (peligrosidad social) from the Criminal Code, the National Protection Law, and other overly broad,
subjective laws that violate international law on freedom of expression and opinion and effectively criminalize dissent. Ratify the core international
human rights treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights—which the Cuban government signed in February 2008. End broad travel restrictions that limit the right of Cubans to leave the island and travel
freely within the island (rights restricted through Decree 217). Stop arbitrary denials of travel visas to individuals who have expressed opinions that are
deemed critical of the government. Allow human rights defenders, journalists, and other dissidents forced into exile to return to Cuba and enjoy their
fundamental freedoms without the threat of imprisonment or other reprisals. Remove arbitrary restrictions preventing Cubans from obtaining access
to the internet. End censorship of websites seen as critical to the government. Allow nongovernmental human rights organizations the ability to travel
to Cuba, meet with human rights defenders and dissident groups, visit prisons, and conduct research without risk of being detained or expelled from
the island.
Lifting Solves - General
Lifting the travel ban leads to Cuban democratization
Lloyd 10 [Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily, 8/24/10, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/]
2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that
easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the
economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But
there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is
that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's
not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by
enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would allow)
rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First,
easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between nongovernmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism
for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and
activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually
exist.
Tourism promotes Democracy
Doyle, Michael, 2011 (Michael Doyle is the Harold Brown Professor of U.S. Foreign and Security Policy, which is a three-fold appointment in the
School of International and Public Affairs, the Department of Political Science, and the Law School. Since 2006, Doyle has been an individual member of
the UN Democracy Fund, which was established in 2005 by the UN General Assembly to promote grass-roots democratization around the world. Doyle
currently serves as the organization’s chairperson. He also co-directs the Center on Global Governance at Columbia Law School., “Promoting
Democracy Is Not Imposing Democracy”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-doyle/promoting-democracy-is-no_b_826574.html)
Until Egypt, the promotion of democracy suffered under the fiasco of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which gave a bad name to the promotion of
democracy, the invasion's last and most desperate justification. But imposing democracy is not promoting democracy. And Egypt is not Iraq, in many
more ways than the obvious. Remember the Bush administration began with a policy against nation-building that resonated with old-fashioned
nationalism and isolationism. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 turned George W.'s prior rhetoric on its head, trumpeting a global campaign against
authoritarianism. His practice, however, fell far short of his rhetoric. He applauded democracy but made very few hard choices in its favor, backing
down from early efforts to push democracy in Egypt after Hamas won the elections in Palestine. He also made little actual investment in democracy in
the very poor countries that were attempting a transition to democracy. Baghdad's political reality exposed the downside of imposing democracy as a
way to expand the peace that democracies experience among themselves. But that failure was not the only reason for rejecting forced
democratization. A century old tradition of ethical and practical lessons argued against it. For anyone committed to equal human dignity, democratic
government means collective "self" government, not laws and regulations imposed by foreigners, however well-meaning. And forcing democracy from
the outside tends not to work. Democracy is not only government "for" the people, it is also government "of" and "by" the people. Unless the people
see themselves as a people and are prepared to pay taxes, defend their borders, and abide by majority rule, democracy is unsustainable. When even
well-meaning foreigners seek to liberate a country whose people haven't been able to liberate themselves, they fall into one of three traps. Trap No. 1:
the newly designated forces of freedom find that they cannot rule, and, as in Iraq, a civil war follows the liberating invasion. Trap No. 2: the new
freedom faction finds that it can stay in power only with ongoing foreign support. So, rather than a free nation, it has become a cog in an imperial
machine. Trap No. 3: the freedom faction learns that to stay in power it must govern as the previous dictators did, by force. The liberating invaders are
thus responsible not only for the costs in lives and money of the invasion but for an invasion that has literally done no good, produced a civil war, a
colony, or one more tyranny with a new ideological label attached. Iraq fell into the first trap, and no one can yet be sure it will avoid the second and
third. No state should risk entering one of these intervention traps other than for overriding concerns, like vital national security after a war of selfdefense or humanitarian rescue of a population facing genocide. Alarming as it was, the confusion last week in Washington as to whether the US should
Democracy is best promoted peacefully. It spreads
by good example, by incentives and assistance. Promoting democracy is done best when it is done
indirectly through trade, investment, and foreign aid. All these can help develop and diversify societies,
and diversified, growing societies tend, over the long run, to demand responsive governance.
Among the most powerful "weapons" in the arsenal of promoting democracy
internationally -- think of them as the genuine shock troops of democratization -- are
students, tourists , and business investors. They build bridges to friends and associates
overseas. They send a message of solidarity and opportunity to subjects who are prepared to
take the risks of becoming active citizens. Building the institutions of the rule of law, a free
press, and education also contributes, indirectly, to promoting sustainable democracy. Bilateral
celebrate or guide the Egyptian revolution left Egyptians in charge.
foreign aid can play a valuable role if it is carefully planned with local actors in the lead. Multilateral assistance, such as the UN Democracy Fund, is
particularly useful because it frees the recipients from the taint of foreign control. And the informal "Community of Democracies" usefully serves as a
kind of "trade" association, encouraging coordination and democracy promotion, without undermining local initiative or multilateral institutions.
Democratic countries need not be passive, and they do need to be patient. Peaceful
strategies offer the best chance for
expanding the zone of peace among fellow democracies and reaping the internal benefits of
democratization.
American Tourists in Cuba promote Democracy there
Kristof, Nicholas D, 2009 (Nicholas Donabet Kristof (born April 27, 1959) is an American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of
two Pulitzer Prizes. He has written an op-ed column for The New York Times since November 2001., “Invade Cuba — with tourists”,
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/invade-cuba-with-tourists/)
It’s great that President Obama is easing curbs on family travel to Cuba, so that Cuban-Americans can visit Cuba freely and remit money to their
Obama should go much further and lift all travel restrictions on Cuba, and lift
the trade embargo as well. Isolating Cuba has failed catastrophically — it has simply impoverished ordinary Cubans and
prevented the normal processes that erode dictatorship. We’ve also given the Castro brothers
a nationalist excuse for their own repression and economic incompetence. Think for a
moment which are the countries that we have isolated the most in recent decades. That’s right —
North Korea and Cuba. Those are exactly the same countries that have been most successful in preserving
Communist dictatorships; we’ve inadvertently done a favor to Kim Jong Il and the Castros. It’s always the
most isolated countries — you can add Turkmenistan to the list — that are most successful at resisting
international pressure for pluralism, human rights and democracy, so it’s mystifying that we somehow think
relatives freely. That’s long overdue. But
that isolating a bad regime is punishing it. It’s hard to think of an initiative toward Cuba that backfired more than the Bay of Pigs invasion. But
suppose we invaded Cuba not with gunmen but with tourists — American tourists who reacted to Havana not
with threats but with mirth (and outrage at the scratchy toilet paper). Unleash hordes of Americans complaining
bitterly about the lack of wifi connections, or asking pointedly why the cars are so old and the buildings
so dilapidated, and the Castros are in trouble. We need more interaction between Cubans and
Americans, not less. So let’s hope that the relaxation on curbs toward Cuba is just a first step. For too many decades, we’ve simply been
helping to keep Fidel in power. You agree?
Lifting solves – Isolation Fails
Isolation from the US strengthens anti-democratic forces in Cuba
Lloyd 10 [Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily, 8/24/10, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/]
6. It's counter-productive. Isolating
Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro brothers
with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather than drawing
attention to their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology products, the United
States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information from the
outside world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization.
Lifting Solves – Economic Boost
Tourism solves corruption – leads to democratization
Tampa Tribune 13 [Tampa Tribune Editorials, Ease travel restrictions to Cuba to boost freedom, 6/9/13,
http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-editorials/ease-travel-restrictions-to-cuba-to-boost-freedom-20130609/]
There is a quick way for our nation to help overwhelm Cuba’s censorship and propaganda.¶
Simply allow Americans —the most effective ambassadors for democracy and free enterprise —to travel more
easily to Cuba.¶ Having more Americans visit Cuba would almost surely boost capitalism in a country that
is cautiously experimenting with property rights and private enterprise.¶ This can be done without the political
firefight of eliminating the 50-year-old Cuban embargo, which greatly restricts trade and travel to Cuba.¶ We
think the embargo no longer serves a useful purpose. Indeed, it gives the Cuban government a scapegoat for its failed economic
policies. As John Caulfield, chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, says, Cuba’s financial woes are a result of “Cuba’s
choice of an economic model.Ӧ But eliminating the embargo or allowing unrestricted travel to Cuba will require congressional
approval, a political challenge.¶ In
contrast, President Barack Obama by executive order can require
general licenses be issued for all approved travel to Cuba.¶ Americans now can receive a visa
to travel for such specific purposes as education and cultural studies. These trips must be guided by
licensed travel services that are required to follow a strict agenda.¶ Everything is tightly regulated by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control to ensure there are no violations of the sanctions against Cuba. (Cuban-Americans appropriately have no restrictions on
traveling to visit family.)¶ The
approval process for the specific visas can be cumbersome and timeconsuming. Obtaining general license is far less complicated, so expanding its use would
eliminate red tape and diminish barriers to travel.¶ The Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. Cuba
remains an authoritarian state, but its grip seems to be slipping. That control would be further eroded should Americans be allowed
to spread the seeds of capitalism and freedom in a country whose people badly need them.
Impacts - Extinction
Democracy is key to check extinction.
Montague 98 - [Peter Montague, co-director Environmental Research Foundation and publisher of Rachael’s Environment and
Health News, 14 October 1998 http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/337/20135]
The environmental movement is treading water and slowly drowning. There is abundant evidence that our efforts -- and they have
been formidable, even heroic -- have largely failed. After
30 years of exceedingly hard work and tremendous sacrifice, we
have failed to stem the tide of environmental deterioration. Make no mistake: our efforts have had a
beneficial effect. Things would be much worse today if our work of the past 30 years had never occurred. However, the question is,
Have our efforts been adequate? Have we succeeded? Have we even come close to stemming the tide of destruction? Has our vision
been commensurate with the scale and scope of the problems we set out to solve? To those questions, if we are honest with
ourselves, we must answer No. What, then, are we to do? This article is intended to provoke thought and debate, and certainly is
not offered as the last word on anything. Openness. Open,
democratic decision-making will be an essential
component of any successful strategy. After the Berlin wall fell, we got a glimpse of what had
happened to the environment and the people under the Soviet dictatorship. The Soviets had some of
the world's strictest environmental laws on the books, but without the ability for citizens to participate in
decisions, or blow the whistle on egregious violations, those laws meant nothing. For the same reason that science
cannot find reliable answers without open peer review, bureaucracies (whether public or private) cannot achieve
beneficial results without active citizen participation in decisions and strong protection for
whistle-blowers. Errors remain uncorrected, narrow perspectives and selfish motives are
rewarded, and the general welfare will not usually be promoted. The fundamental importance of
democratic decision-making means that our strategies must not focus on legislative battles.
Clearly, we must contend for the full power of government to be harnessed toward achieving
our goals, but this is quite different from focusing our efforts on lobbying campaigns to convince legislators to do the right thing
from time to time. Lobbying can mobilise people for the short term, but mobilising is not the same as organising. During the past 30
years, the environmental movement has had some notable successes mobilising people, but few successes building long-term
organisations that people can live their lives around and within (the way many families in the '30s, '40s and '50s lived their lives
around and within their unions' struggles). The focus of our strategies must be on building organisations that involve people and, in
that process, finding new allies. The power to govern would naturally flow from those efforts. This question of democracy is not
trivial. It is deep. And it deeply divides the environmental movement, or rather movements. Many members of the mainstream
environmental movement tend to view ordinary people as the enemy (for example, they love to say, “We have met the enemy and
he is us”.). They fundamentally don't trust people to make good decisions, so they prefer to leave ordinary people out of the
equation. Instead, they scheme with lawyers and experts behind closed doors, then announce their “solution”. Then they lobby
Congress in hopes that Congress will impose this latest “solution” on us all. Naturally, such people don't develop a big following, and
their “solutions” -- even when Congress has been willing to impose them -- have often proven to be expensive, burdensome and
ultimately unsuccessful. Experts. In the modern era, open
democratic decision-making is essential to survival.
Only by informing people, and trusting their decisions, can we survive as a human society. Our
technologies are now too complex and too powerful to be left solely in the hands of a few
experts. If they are allowed to make decisions behind closed doors, small groups of experts can
make fatal errors. One thinks of the old Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) justifying above-ground nuclear
weapons testing. In the early 1950s, their atomic fallout was showering the population with
strontium-90, a highly radioactive element that masquerades as calcium when it is taken into the
body. Once in the body, strontium-90 moves into the bones, where it irradiates the bone marrow, causing cancer. The AEC's best
and brightest studied this problem in detail and argued in secret memos that the only way strontium-90 could get into humans
would be through cattle grazing on contaminated grass. They calculated the strontium-90 intake of the cows, and the amount that
would end up in the cows' bones. On that basis, the AEC reported to Congress in 1953, “The only potential hazard to human beings
would be the ingestion of bone splinters which might be intermingled with muscle tissue in butchering and cutting of the meat. An
insignificant amount would enter the body in this fashion.” Thus, they concluded, strontium-90 was not endangering people. The
following year, Congress declassified many of the AEC's deliberations. As soon as these memos became public, scientists and citizens
began asking, “What about the cows' milk?” The AEC scientists had no response. They had neglected to ask whether strontium-90,
mimicking calcium, would contaminate cows' milk, which of course it did. Secrecy
in government and corporate
decision-making continues to threaten the well-being of everyone on the planet as new
technologies are deployed at an accelerating pace after inadequate consideration of their
effects. Open, democratic decision-making is no longer a luxury. In the modern world, it is a
necessity for human survival.
Impacts – Nuclear War
Continued democratization is essential to avert nuclear war
Muravchik 01 – Resident Scholar at American Enterprise Institute
[Joshua, “Democracy and nuclear peace,” Jul 11, http://www.npec-web.org/syllabi/muravchik.htm]
The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread of democracy. In a famous
article, and subsequent book, Francis¶ Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was leading to "the end of history."
By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also¶ meant the "diminution of the likelihood of largescale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even tongue-in-cheek, but¶ he was pointing to two down-toearth historical observations: that democracies are more peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more democratic. Neither point¶ has gone
unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions.¶
Democracies, he said, were slow to anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by the policy of
"unconditional¶ surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong.
Democracies are not only slow to¶ anger but also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender, America treated Japan and
the
proposition that democracies do not go to war¶ with one another has been described by one political
scientist as being "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international ¶ relations." (3)
that part of Germany that it occupied with¶ extraordinary generosity. In recent years a burgeoning literature has discussed the peacefulness of democracies. Indeed
Some of those who find enthusiasm for democracy off-putting have challenged this proposition, but their challenges have only served as empirical tests that have confirmed its
robustness. For example, the academic Paul Gottfried and the¶ columnist-turned-politician Patrick J. Buchanan have both instanced democratic England's declaration of war
against democratic Finland during World War II. (4) In fact, after much procrastination, England did accede to the pressure of its Soviet ally to declare war¶ against Finland which
was allied with Germany. But the declaration was purely formal: no fighting ensued between England and Finland. Surely this is an exception that proves the rule. The strongest
exception I can think of is the war between the nascent state of Israel¶ and the Arabs in 1948. Israel was an embryonic democracy and Lebanon, one of the Arab belligerents,
was also democratic within the confines of its peculiar confessional division of power. Lebanon, however, was a reluctant party to the fight. Within the councils of the¶ Arab
League, it opposed the war but went along with its larger confreres when they opted to attack. Even so, Lebanon did little fighting and soon sued for peace. Thus, in the case of
Lebanon against Israel, as in the case of England against Finland, democracies¶ nominally went to war against democracies when they were dragged into conflicts by
authoritarian allies. The political scientist Bruce Russett offers a different challenge to the notion that democracies are more peaceful. "That democracies are in general, in
dealing with¶ all kinds of states, more peaceful than are authoritarian or other nondemocratically constituted states . . . .is a much more controversial proposition than 'merely'
that democracies are peaceful in their dealings with each other, and one for which there is little systematic¶ evidence," he says. (5) Russett cites his own and other statistical
explorations which show that while democracies rarely fight one another they often fight against others. The trouble with such studies, however, is that they rarely examine the
question of who started or¶ caused a war. To reduce the data to a form that is quantitatively measurable, it is easier to determine whether a conflict has occurred between two
states than whose fault it was. But the latter question is all important. Democracies may often go to war against¶ dictatorships because the dictators see them as prey or
underestimate their resolve. Indeed, such examples abound. Germany might have behaved more cautiously in the summer of 1914 had it realized that England would fight to
vindicate Belgian neutrality and to¶ support France. Later, Hitler was emboldened by his notorious contempt for the flabbiness of the democracies. North Korea almost surely
discounted the likelihood of an American military response to its invasion of the South after Secretary of State Dean Acheson¶ publicly defined America's defense perimeter to
exclude the Korean peninsula (a declaration which merely confirmed existing U.S. policy). In 1990, Saddam Hussein's decision to swallow Kuwait was probably encouraged by the
inference he must have taken from the¶ statements and actions of American officials that Washington would offer no forceful resistance. Russett says that those who claim
democracies are in general more peaceful "would have us believe that the United States was regularly on the defensive, rarely on the¶ offensive, during the Cold War." But that
is not quite right: the word "regularly" distorts the issue. A victim can sometimes turn the tables on an aggressor, but that does not make the victim equally bellicose. None
would dispute that Napoleon was responsible for the¶ Napoleonic wars or Hitler for World War II in Europe, but after a time their victims seized the offensive. So in the Cold
War, the United States may have initiated some skirmishes (although in fact it rarely did), but the struggle as a whole was driven one-sidedly. The¶ Soviet policy was "class
warfare"; the American policy was "containment." The so-called revisionist historians argued that America bore an equal or larger share of responsibility for the conflict. But
Mikhail Gorbachev made nonsense of their theories when, in the name¶ of glasnost and perestroika, he turned the Soviet Union away from its historic course. The Cold War
ended almost instantly--as he no doubt knew it would. "We would have been able to avoid many . . . difficulties if the democratic process had developed normally in our¶
country," he wrote. (7) To render judgment about the relative peacefulness of states or systems, we must ask not only who started a war but why. In particular we should
consider what in Catholic Just War doctrine is called "right intention," which means roughly: what¶ did they hope to get out of it? In the few cases in recent times in which wars
were initiated by democracies, there were often motives other than aggrandizement, for example, when America invaded Grenada. To be sure, Washington was impelled by
self-interest more¶ than altruism, primarily its concern for the well-being of American nationals and its desire to remove a chip, however tiny, from the Soviet game board. But
America had no designs upon Grenada, and the invaders were greeted with joy by the Grenadan citizenry. After¶ organizing an election, America pulled out. In other cases,
democracies have turned to war in the face of provocation, such as Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to root out an enemy sworn to its destruction or Turkey's invasion of
Cyprus to rebuff a power-grab by¶ Greek nationalists. In contrast, the wars launched by dictators, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, North Korea's of South Korea, the Soviet
Union's of Hungary and Afghanistan, often have aimed at conquest or subjugation. The big exception to this rule is colonialism.¶ The European powers conquered most of Africa
and Asia, and continued to hold their prizes as Europe democratized. No doubt many of the instances of democracies at war that enter into the statistical calculations of
researchers like Russett stem from the colonial era.¶ But colonialism was a legacy of Europe's pre-democratic times, and it was abandoned after World War II. Since then, I know
of no case where a democracy has initiated warfare without significant provocation or for reasons of sheer aggrandizement, but there are¶ several cases where dictators have
done so. One interesting piece of Russett's research should help to point him away from his doubts that democracies are more peaceful in general. He aimed to explain why
democracies are more peaceful toward each other. Immanuel¶ Kant was the first to observe, or rather to forecast, the pacific inclination of democracies. He reasoned that
"citizens . . . will have a great hesitation in . . . . calling down on themselves all the miseries of war." (8) But this valid insight is incomplete. There is a deeper¶ explanation.
Democracy is not just a mechanism; it entails a spirit of compromise and self-restraint. At bottom, democracy is the willingness to resolve civil disputes without recourse to
violence. Nations that embrace this ethos in the conduct of their domestic affairs are¶ naturally more predisposed to embrace it in their dealings with other nations. Russett
aimed to explain why democracies are more peaceful toward one another. To do this, he constructed two models. One hypothesized that the cause lay in the mechanics of
democratic¶ decision-making (the "structural/institutional model"), the other that it lay in the democratic ethos (the "cultural/normative model"). His statistical assessments led
him to conclude that: "almost always the cultural/normative model shows a consistent effect on conflict¶ occurrence and war. The structural/institutional model sometimes
provides a significant relationship but often does not." (9) If it is the ethos that makes democratic states more peaceful toward each other, would not that ethos also make them
more peaceful in general?¶ Russett implies that the answer is no, because to his mind a critical element in the peaceful behavior of democracies toward other democracies is
their anticipation of a conciliatory attitude by their counterpart. But this is too pat. The attitude of live-and-let-live cannot be¶ turned on and off like a spigot. The citizens and
officials of democracies recognize that other states, however governed, have legitimate interests, and they are disposed to try to accommodate those interests except when the
other party's behavior seems threatening or¶ outrageous. A different kind of challenge to the thesis that democracies are more peaceful has been posed by the political
scientists Edward G. Mansfield and Jack Snyder. They claim statistical support for the proposition that while fully fledged democracies may be¶ pacific, Ain th[e] transitional
phase of democratization, countries become more aggressive and war-prone, not less." (10) However, like others, they measure a state's likelihood of becoming involved in a
war but do not report attempting to determine the cause or fault.¶ Moreover, they acknowledge that their research revealed not only an increased likelihood for a state to
become involved in a war when it was growing more democratic, but an almost equal increase for states growing less democratic. This raises the possibility that the¶ effects
they were observing were caused simply by political change per se, rather than by democratization. Finally, they implicitly acknowledge that the relationship of democratization
and peacefulness may change over historical periods. There is no reason to suppose¶ that any such relationship is governed by an immutable law. Since their empirical base
reaches back to 1811, any effect they report, even if accurately interpreted, may not hold in the contemporary world. They note that "in [some] recent cases, in contrast to
some of our¶ historical results, the rule seems to be: go fully democratic, or don't go at all." But according to Freedom House, some 62.5 percent of extant governments were
chosen in legitimate elections. (12) (This is a much larger proportion than are adjudged by Freedom House to¶ be "free states," a more demanding criterion, and it includes
many weakly democratic states.) Of the remaining 37.5 percent, a large number are experiencing some degree of democratization or heavy pressure in that direction. So the
choice "don't go at all" (11) is rarely¶ realistic in the contemporary world. These statistics also contain the answer to those who doubt the second proposition behind
Fukuyama's forecast, namely, that the world is growing more democratic. Skeptics have drawn upon Samuel Huntington's fine book, The¶ Third Wave: Democratization in the
Late Twentieth Century. Huntington says that the democratization trend that began in the mid-1970s in Portugal, Greece and Spain is the third such episode. The first "wave" of
democratization began with the American revolution¶ and lasted through the aftermath of World War I, coming to an end in the interwar years when much of Europe regressed
back to fascist or military dictatorship. The second wave, in this telling, followed World War II when wholesale decolonization gave rise to a raft of¶ new democracies. Most of
these, notably in Africa, collapsed into dictatorship by the 1960s, bringing the second wave to its end. Those who follow Huntington's argument may take the failure of
democracy in several of the former Soviet republics and some other¶ instances of backsliding since 1989 to signal the end of the third wave. Such an impression, however,
would be misleading. One unsatisfying thing about Huntington's "waves" is their unevenness. The first lasted about 150 years, the second about 20. How long should¶ we expect
the third to endure? If it is like the second, it will ebb any day now, but if it is like the first, it will run until the around the year 2125. And by then--who knows?--perhaps mankind
will have incinerated itself, moved to another planet, or even devised a better¶ political system. Further, Huntington's metaphor implies a lack of overall progress or direction.
Waves rise and fall. But each of the reverses that followed Huntington's two waves was brief, and each new wave raised the number of democracies higher than before.¶
Huntington does, however, present a statistic that seems to weigh heavily against any unidirectional interpretation of democratic progress. The proportion of states that were
democratic in 1990 (45%), he says, was identical to the proportion in 1922. (13) But there are¶ two answers to this. In 1922 there were only 64 states; in 1990 there were 165.
But the number of peoples had not grown appreciably. The difference was that in 1922 most peoples lived in colonies, and they were not counted as states. The 64 states of that
time were¶ mostly the advanced countries. Of those, two thirds had become democratic by 1990, which was a significant gain. The additional 101 states counted in 1990 were
mostly former colonies. Only a minority, albeit a substantial one, were democratic in 1990, but since¶ virtually none of those were democratic in 1922, that was also a significant
gain. In short, there was progress all around, but this was obscured by asking what percentage of states were democratic. Asking the question this way means that a people who
were subjected to¶ a domestic dictator counted as a non-democracy, but a people who were subjected to a foreign dictator did not count at all. Moreover, while the criteria for
judging a state democratic vary, the statistic that 45 percent of states were democratic in 1990 corresponds with¶ Freedom House's count of "democratic" polities (as opposed
to its smaller count of "free" countries, a more demanding criterion). But by this same count, Freedom House now says that the proportion of democracies has grown to 62.5
percent. In other words, the "third¶ wave" has not abated. That Freedom House could count 120 freely elected governments by early 2001 (out of a total of 192 independent
states) bespeaks a¶ vast transformation in human governance within the span of 225 years. In 1775, the number of democracies was zero. In 1776, the birth of the United States
of America¶ brought the total up to one. Since then, democracy has spread at an accelerating pace, most of the growth having occurred within the twentieth century, with
greatest momentum since 1974.¶ That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary¶ years
in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some¶ backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has
Nonetheless, the¶ overall trend
remains powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before. This
progress¶ offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was
radically reduced almost overnight when Russia¶ abandoned Communism and turned to
democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the¶
emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization.
included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole.
Impacts – Human Rights
Democracy promotes Human Rights
UN, 2012 (The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims include promoting and facilitating cooperation in international
law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedoms, democracy, and the
achievement of lasting world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries,
and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions, “Democracy and Human Rights”,
http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/human_rights.shtml)
The values of freedom, respect for human
rights and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are
essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the
protection and effective realization of human rights. These values are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and further developed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which enshrines a host of political rights and civil liberties
The link between democracy and human rights is captured in article
21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the
underpinning meaningful democracies.
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held
by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” The rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
and subsequent human
rights instruments covering group rights (e.g. indigenous peoples, minorities, people with disabilities) are
equally essential for democracy as they ensure inclusivity for all groups, including equality and equity in respect of access to civil and
political rights. For several years, the UN General Assembly and the former Commission on Human Rights endeavored to draw on international human
rights instruments to promote a common understanding of the principles, norms, standards and values that are the basis of democracy, with a view to
guiding Member States in developing domestic democratic traditions and institutions; and in meeting their commitments to human rights, democracy
and development. This led to the articulation of several landmark resolutions of the former Commission on Human Rights. In 2000, the Commission
recommended a series of important legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy (resolution 2000/47); and in 2002, the
Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy:
Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms Freedom of
association Freedom of expression and opinion Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law The holding of periodic free and fair
elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations
The separation of powers The independence of the judiciary Transparency and accountability in public administration Free, independent and pluralistic
media In 2007, the Secretary-General’s Policy Committee, the highest decision-making body within the UN Secretariat, requested the development of
an Organization-wide strategy that further defines the UN’s approach to supporting democracy, anchored in the three pillars of the UN’s work, namely,
peace and security, develop-ment, and human rights. The Secretary-General tasked the Democracy Working Group of the Executive Committee on
Peace and Security — established in May 2007 — to ensure regular follow-up on the issue of democracy and, more specifically, on strategy
Democracy deficits, weak institutions and poor leadership are
among the main challenges to the effective realization of human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner
development. Addressing democracy deficits
for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) seek to address these challenges through its advisory services and
technical cooperation programmes, which focus on strengthening the legal framework for human rights protection (institutional and legal reform);
capacity building; empowering vulnerable and disadvantaged segments of the society; advocacy, awareness raising and human rights education. In
transitional democracies and countries emerging from conflicts, OHCHR collaborates with national governments and actors to build a strong and
independent judiciary, a representative, efficient and accountable parliament, an independent and effective national human rights institution, and a
Democratic governance, as supported by the United Nations emphasizes
the role of individuals and peoples — all of them, without any exclusion — in shaping their
human growth and the human development of societies. But individuals can only make such
contributions when their individual potential is unleashed through the enjoyment of human
rights. In 2011, UNDP helped more than 130 countries and devoted US$1.5 billion in resources to democratic governance, making UNDP the
vibrant civil society. Promoting democratic governance
world's largest provider of democratic governance assistance. UNDP supports one in three parliaments in the developing world and an election every
two weeks. UNDP also works to foster partnerships and share ways to promote participation, accountability and effectiveness at all levels, aiming to
build effective and capable states that are accountable and transparent, inclusive and responsive — from elections to participation of women and the
poor. OHCHR promotes democratic governance by providing sustained support to democratic institutions, including national actors and institutions
involved in the administration of justice; enhancing the capacity of parliamentarians to engage in human rights protection, supporting civil society and
facilitating electoral and constitution building processes. Supporting transitional democracies Recent popular uprisings across the Arab region were
led by youth, women, and men from all social strata and are opening greater space for civic engagement in decision making. The calls for
transformational change are a popular cry for choice, participation, transparency and respect for people’s legitimate quest for democratic space. These
events have reaffirmed the pivotal importance of democratic governance as a system premised on inclusion, participation, non-discrimination and
accountability. In transitional democracies and countries emerging from conflict, OHCHR collaborates with national governments and other actors to
confront the past in order to rebuild public confidence and restore peace and the rule of law. With a focus on combating impunity, OHCHR has actively
supported transitional justice programmes in more than 20 countries around the world over the past decade. Its support includes ensuring that human
rights and transitional justice considerations are reflected in peace agreements; engaging in the design and implementation of inclusive national
consultations on transitional justice mechanisms; supporting the establishment of truth-seeking processes, judicial accountability mechanisms, and
reparations programmes; and enhancing institutional reform. Guiding national and regional efforts Two expert seminars organized by OHCHR in 2002
and 2005 shed light on the main challenges to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, including: Deepening poverty Threats to human security
The infringements of individual rights and impediments to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms Erosions of the rule of law in contexts such as
counter-terrorism Illegal occupation involving the use of force The escalation of armed conflicts Unequal access to justice by disadvantaged groups
Impunity The reports of these seminars stand as a guide for developing national and regional frameworks and strategies for the realization of
democracy as a holistic concept based on a strict adherence to human rights and the principles of the rule of law. Moreover, OHCHR has published a
compilation of relevant documents and texts which serves as a reference and analytical tool for Constitution making, the revision/drafting of national
legislations and strategies to consolidate human rights and democratic foundations. More recently, in March 2012, the Human Rights Council adopted
a resolution titled “Human rights, democracy and the rule of law,” which reaffirmed that democracy,
development and respect
for all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually
reinforcing. The Council called upon States to make continuous efforts to strengthen the rule of law and promote democracy through a wide
range of measures. It also requested the OHCHR, in consultation with States, national human rights institutions, civil society, relevant
intergovernmental bodies and international organizations, to draft a study on challenges, lessons learned and best practices in securing democracy and
the rule of law from a human rights perspective OHCHR also works to underline the close
relationship between human rights
and democracy within the United Nations system. In collaboration with the UN Department of Political Affairs and the International Institute
for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), OHCHR organized a ‘Round Table on Democracy and Human Rights’ in New York in 2011.
The round table discussed democracy movements and their characteristics in a number of States, including those involved in the Arab Spring. It
underlined the importance of working with regional and sub-regional organizations when dealing with unconstitutional changes of Government, and
when promoting democratic movements and democracies more generally. OHCHR also seeks to partner with intergovernmental democracy-promoting
organizations such as l’Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe and regional intergovernmental organizations. In addition, the Office provides dedicated support to the UN Democracy Fund, advising the
decision making process on programme funding criteria and on project proposals.
We have a moral obligation to promote human rights abroad
DFA, 1998 ( The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the Foreign Policy Department of
the Irish government, “"Moral obligation to advance human rights at home and abroad"
O'Donnell”, http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=26895)
"Human rights are the birthright of all human beings. The protection and promotion of these
rights is the first responsibility of every government" said Minister O'Donnell this evening. The Minister, who has
special responsibility for human rights, was speaking to the Dail in a debate marking the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of the UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. She said that a
meaningful human rights policy cannot exist in isolation. "We
need to ensure that awareness and vindication of human rights permeates the whole of our
foreign policy including humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, conflict
prevention and crisis management, peacekeeping and asylum issues". Referring to asylum-seekers and
refugees, Minister O'Donnell said that there can be no place for racism in Ireland. An additional £ 90,000 will be spent next year on increased activities
to combat racism and xenophobia. "I am confident that we are moving towards the establishment of a credible system. Asylum-seekers and refugees
now ask from us what we received from others in the past - security and the chance of a better life". The Minister welcomed the recent agreement on
multi-annual funding for the aid budget. " Far from the target of 0.45% of GNP being abandoned, we have put it within reach". The total amount of £
400 million committed for spending over the three years will bring Ireland from twelfth into eighth place in the table of donor generosity. The Minister
said that the new approach will enable funds to be guaranteed in advance "The aid practitioners who work at the coalface of the aid delivery process
are unanimous in the view that predictability of funding is the single most important factor in terms of effective programme planning". The Minister
paid tribute to the many NGOs and individuals active in the area of human rights. She said that the new Human Rights Commission, as agreed under the
Good Friday Agreement, would greatly increase human rights awareness in Ireland. Legislation is to be published "shortly" to establish the Human
Rights Commission and this, together with our new anti-discrimination legislation "will shore up the system of protection of human rights into the next
century".
Impacts - Freedom
Democracy solves personal freedoms – that means you vote aff no matter what
side of the fence you fall on
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The first way in which the
spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by
promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to
own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of
democratic politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic political
process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices.
Moreover, governments that are accountable
to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of
human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and
more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very
likely to promote liberty. Freedom House''s 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be
classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world''s 73
nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24¶ The
case for the maximum possible amount of
individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights. The
utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more
people to realize their full human potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of
humankind. This view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual,
artistic, and productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on the other hand,
does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men and women, by virtue of their common
humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We
hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."¶
Impacts - Genocide
Democracy solves genocides – prefer our reverse causal, empirically supported
evidence
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
Second, America should
spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are
less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings
are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which
he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal
violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that
citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian
and authoritarian
regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of
civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been
authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the P eople''s R epublic of C hina, Nazi Germany, Nationalist
China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never
massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American
and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war
that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some
prominent examples.29¶ There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic
political systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing
their ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute power
kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more thoroughly it can repress
and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly and have
regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the political process remain committed to democratic
principles, critics of the government need
violence to repress opponents.31
not stage violent revolutions and governments will not use
Impacts - Tyranny
The alternative to democracy is tyranny and economic collapse
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue
against making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that
individual liberty is an important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved.
Others place greater emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist
Sidney Webb, for example, articulated this view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of
each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but
the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine."25 To
debate these issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than this one.26 The short
response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand for liberty
among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above
subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important,
most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have
tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
Impacts – Demo Solves Econ
Democracy solves econ – prefer our reverse causal, empirically supported
evidence
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend
to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of
time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits.
Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close correlation with prosperity" is one
of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished
economically, at least until the last few years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long
haul democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson
points out: "It is no accident that the countries that have
reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable
democracies."33¶ Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the Soviet
Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States, leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev
to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted double-digit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely
can sustain these rates of growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow
extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic policies, such growth lasts
only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings
ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will
continue its rapid economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates in the long
term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict that the stresses of high rates of
economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36¶ Why do democracies
perform better than
autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially
liberal democracies-are more likely to have market economies, and market economies tend to
produce economic growth over the long run. Most of the world''s leading economies thus tend to be market
economies, including the United States, Japan, the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between economic
liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which
evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s population and 99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as
the right to own property, operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of
the world''s output even though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection
between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed an Index of Economic Freedom that
looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment,
banking policy, wage and price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries classified
as "free" had annual 1980-1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in terms of purchasing power parities)
growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was¶ 0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed"
countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies
generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.¶ Second, democracies that
embrace liberal principles
of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth.
Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their
investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require assurances that private property
will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court system exists
and can require individuals to enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding
mechanism of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions also happen to be
those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal principles of individual rights.
Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic
development are exactly the same conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent
judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property
and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for long-term economic growth.¶ A third reason may operate in some
circumstances: democratic
governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary
to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is particularly likely to be important in
former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent
years to pursue difficult economic reforms.42
Impacts - War
Democracies promote peace – solve disputes without warfare.
Ray ‘1 - Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University (James Lee, “DOES DEMOCRACY CAUSE
PEACE?” February 1, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm) //DK
Does democracy cause peace? The empirical
evidence in favor of the proposition that democratic states
have not initiated and are not likely to initiate interstate wars against each other is
substantial, especially when compared with that which could be brought to bear by specialists in the 1970s. Criticism of this
evidence has so far met with reasonably persuasive counterarguments by the defenders of the proposition. Despite a common
opinion to the contrary, the theoretical
bases for the hypothesis regarding the absence of war
between democratic states are highly developed and may to some extent be complementary
as well as competitive. For example, some factors may make democratic states unlikely to become
involved in serious, militarized disputes in the first place, while other factors enable them to
resolve serious disputes without warfare
when they do occur. No scientific evidence is entirely definitive, and the
greater number of democratic states in the post–Cold War era may increase opportunities for conflicts that will cast grave doubts on
the democratic peace proposition. But for the moment at least, well-developed
theoretical bases reinforce a
lengthy list of systematic empirical analyses in support of that proposition. Moreover, the
multiple streams of arguments and evidence supporting the proposition are highly diverse in
character: epistemological (Rummel 1975), philosophical (Doyle 1986), formal (Bueno de Mesquita & Lalman 1992; B Bueno de
Mesquita, R Siverson, unpublished data), historical (Weart 1994, Ray 1995, Owen 1994), experimental (Mintz & Geva 1993),
anthropological (Ember et al 1992, Crawford 1994), psychological (Kegley & Hermann 1995), economic (Brawley 1993, Weede
1996b), political (Gaubatz 1991), and statistical (Ray & Russett 1996, p. 458). Perhaps, then, the more defensible of the two possible
definitive answers to the question "Does democracy cause peace?" is "Yes."
Democracy solves war – prefer our reverse causal, empirically supported
evidence
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the
spread of democracy will benefit the
international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war on other
democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and "democracy" used-has been called "one
of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations that can be made about international relations."51 One scholar
argues that "the
absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an
empirical law in international relations."52 If the number of democracies in the international system continues to
grow, the number of potential conflicts that might escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between democracies and
nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in
the long run an international system composed of
democracies would be a peaceful world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would gradually
enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."
No war – democracies have no justification to fight each other
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude wars between democracies.
One version of this argument contends that liberal states do not fight other liberal states because to do so would be to violate the
principles of liberalism. Liberal states only wage war when it advances the liberal ends of increased individual freedom. A
liberal
state cannot advance liberal ends by fighting another liberal state, because that state already upholds the
principles of liberalism. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no
justification for wars between liberal democracies.59 A second version of the normative explanation claims that
democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution. This norm applies between and within democratic
states. Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence , and they expect that other
democracies will resolve inter-democratic international disputes peacefully.60
No war – democracies have checks in place to avoid rushing into war with each
other
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
Institutional/structural explanations for the democratic peace contend that democratic decision-making procedures and institutional
constraints prevent democracies from waging war on one another. At the most general level, democratic
leaders are
constrained by the public, which is sometimes pacific and generally slow to mobilize for war. In most democracies, the
legislative and executive branches check the war-making power of each other. These constraints may
prevent democracies from launching wars. When two democracies confront one another internationally,
they are not likely to rush into war. Their leaders will have more time to resolve disputes
peacefully.61 A different sort of institutional argument suggests that democratic processes and freedom of speech make
democracies better at avoiding myths and misperceptions that cause wars.62
No war – multiple checks and barriers
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
Some studies have attempted to test the relative power of the normative and institutional/structural explanations of the democratic
peace.63 It might make more sense, however, to specify how the two work in combination or separately under different conditions.
For example, in
liberal democracies liberal norms and democratic processes probably work in tandem to
the democratic peace.64 Liberal states are unlikely to even contemplate war
with one another. They thus will have few crises and wars. In illiberal or semiliberal democracies, norms
play a lesser role and crises are more likely, but democratic institutions and processes may still make wars between
synergistically produce
illiberal democracies rare. Finally, state-level factors like norms and domestic structures may interact with international-systemic
factors to prevent wars between democracies. If
democracies are better at information-processing, they
may be better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would
be foolish. Thus the logic of the democratic peace may explain why democracies sometimes behave according to realist
(systemic) predictions.
Prefer our evidence More proof – democracies do not go to war with one another – prefer our
statistically, empirically supported evidence
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war
with one another. In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all international wars between
1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war
with one another."54 Subsequent statistical
studies have found that this absence of war between
democracies is statistically significant and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that
the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract
from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one
another.56¶ Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of peace with
other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with nondemocracies.57 There are, however, several scholars
who argue that democracies are inherently less likely to go to war than other types of states .58 The
evidence for this claim remains in dispute, however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than
to enlarge the democratic zone of peace.¶
Prefer our evidence – theirs is not founded in empirically supported data
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
Several criticisms of the democratic peace proposition fault the logic that has been advanced to
explain the apparent absence of war between democracies. These arguments do not rest on an
assessment of the empirical evidence, but instead rely on analyses and critiques of the internal
consistency and persuasiveness of the theoretical explanations of the democratic peace. Critics
have offered four major challenges to the logic of the democratic peace: (a) there is no
consensus on the causal mechanisms that keep democracies at peace: (b) the possibility that
democracies may turn into nondemocracies means that even democracies operate according to
realist principles; (c) the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace is flawed,
not least because its logic also would predict that democracies are less likely to be involved in
any wars, not just wars with other democracies; and (d) the normative explanation of the
democratic peace is unpersuasive.
Prefer our evidence – just because we don’t know for a fact why exactly
democracies don’t go to war doesn’t mean that they don’t
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: The first, and most general criticism of the deductive logic of the democratic
peace proposition holds that the lack of agreement on what causes democracies to avoid war
with one another calls the proposition into question.75 This argument suggests that scholars
cannot be confident in an empirical finding when they cannot agree on its causes.¶ Response:
The fact that several theories have been advanced to explain the democratic peace does not
mean that we cannot be confident that democracies are unlikely to fight one another. There is
no reason to assume that a single theory explains all the cases in which democracies have
avoided war with one another. It is possible to be confident in an empirical finding even when
many different explanations account for it. For example, it is empirically true that all human
beings eventually die. (The discovery of evidence to refute this proposition would have
profound biological, philosophical, and theological implications, not to mention its effects on
retirement planning and the future of the Social Security system.) But there are many causes of
death, each of which rests on a different logic of explanation. People die in wars, accidents, and
violent crimes, as well as from AIDS, heart disease, numerous types of cancer, and Alzheimer''s
Disease, among many other factors. In some cases, the causal logic of the explanation of death
is very clear. It is well understood how a bullet through the heart leads to death. In other cases,
including many infectious and chronic diseases, the precise biological and physiological
processes that cause death are not fully understood. Nevertheless, the variety of causal
mechanisms and our incomplete understanding of many of them do not lead us to the
conclusion that some human beings will not die.¶ Accounting for the absence of wars between
democracies is somewhat similar to explaining why people die. Several causal mechanisms
explain the absence of wars between democracies. In some cases, democracies avoid war
because the distribution of power in the international system gives them strong incentives to
remain at peace. In at least some of these cases, democratic decision-making processes may
make democracies "smarter" and better able to recognize systemic incentives. When states
share liberal values, they are unlikely to go to war because fighting one another would
undermine liberal values such as respect for individual freedom. As John Owen has argued,
democratic institutions may reinforce the incentives for peace provided by shared liberal
principles.76 And there are probably additional explanations for why at least some democratic
dyads have remained at peace. Proponents of the democratic peace need to refine the logic of
each explanation and identify the conditions under which they apply, but the multiplicity of
explanations does not mean that the democratic peace is invalid.
AT: Democracies  War
Criticisms of democracy are wrong – history proves democracies are more
peaceful and stable than any other governmental form. US demo promo
empirically succeed
Karatnycky 97 president of Freedom House, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Program on Transatlantic Relations and
managing partner of Myrmidon Group LLC, a New York based consultancy that works with investors and corporations seeking entry
into the complex emerging markets of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, founder and co-director of the Ukrainian-Jewish Encounter,
frequent contributor to Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the
International Herald Tribune, and many other periodicals. He is co-author of three books and co-editor of eight books on Soviet and
post-Soviet themes [Adrian Karatnycky, “Still the Bedrock of a Better World”, The Washington Post, December 29 1997, accessed via
LexisNexis June 29 2013] SM
Kaplan has written that democracies excite ethnic and nationalist passions, frequently leading to turmoil and violence. Moreover, he
claims, they are unable to make the reform necessary for economic progress. Zakaria has little sympathy for authoritarian solutions,
but he argues that democracy cannot be manufactured; it requires the centuries-long maturing of societies and institutions in a
framework of "constitutional liberalism."¶ Rosenfeld agrees with Zakaria and Kaplan. He argues that you need "the sort of
propertied professional middle class it takes a century or two to shape. . . ." The only trouble with this postulate is the historical
record. The centuries-long development of propertied middle classes in Europe did not lead to the emergence of liberal ideas in the
1920s and 1930s, but became the breeding ground for Nazi racism and fascism.¶ By contrast, India avoided ethnocide and genocide
under democratic electoral rule held well before its extensive middle class emerged. Amid acute poverty, India's democracy has
pursued difficult and much-needed free-market reforms. Similar progress in freedom and tolerance can be observed in democratic
post-conflict South Africa and in Nicaragua and EI Salvador, two of the hemisphere's poorest countries, which have healed the
wounds of protracted civil war in part through the agency of democratic electoral processes. And in the impoverished Philippines, an
electoral democracy has deepened the roots of freedom and established a growing economy through tough-minded market
reform.¶ The
problem with the new-found pessimism about democracy is that it is misplaced. It
blames the victim by wrongly ascribing violence and turmoil to the actions of weak new
democracies rather than to the military coups or illiberal insurgencies to which they fall prey.¶
A second problem with this skepticism is that it is unjustified. Each year, Freedom House issues a year-end survey of the
state of political rights and civil liberties around the world. In 1995, there were 117 democratically elected governments, of which 76
were free. This year's just-released survey finds that while the number of democracies has remained static at 117, the number of
free countries has increased to 81. What accounts for this trend? Successive
competitive elections, which result in
debate over policy alternatives and force leaders to face the
judgment of public opinion. Moderation and incremental liberalization are the result. In short, trends
suggest that what Farced Zakaria calls "illiberal democracies" are in decline.¶ The record of many electoral
stronger political parties, stimulate
democracies that have faced ethnic and separatist conflicts and tensions confounds Robert Kaplan's claim that democracy inflames
nationalist passions. In Russia, the war in Chechnya ground to a halt under the pressure of voter discontent (President Yeltsin began
serious negotiations weeks before the June 1996 elections amid growing popularity of antiwar candidate Aleksandr Lebed). In
Moldova, despite civil war in a breakaway region, democratic elections saw the weakening of the appeal of the more extreme
nationalist parties. In Ukraine, a combination of elections and federalism has preserved the peace in predominantly Russian Crimea,
which many predicted would be an ethnic tinderbox. Even Turkey, which continues to suppress its Kurdish minority and has a poor
human rights record, has a military that cannot engage in wanton destruction in part because of the constraints imposed by the
democratically elected civilian leadership and a vibrant civil society. In short, restraint,
constraint, negotiation and
compromise are more likely if leaders know that their policies are subject to regular public
review and electoral disapproval.¶ Contrast this with the record of nondemocratic states. Serbia's
authoritarian leader has fomented hate-based nationalism and backed proxies in a war against the democratically accountable
leaders of Bosnia. The dictatorship in Burma has pursued a relentless war against the Karen minority. And there is the ruthless antiKurdish war that has been waged by Saddam Hussein.¶ In the end, the pessimism of the democracy skeptics isn't always so
pessimistic. Fareed Zakaria is right to suggest that it is better to "consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage
the gradual development of constitutional liberalism around the globe." But if he examines the record, he will find that
authoritarian rulers rarely are enlightened and almost never are willing to countenance
constitutional liberalism based on checks and balances and limits on their power. By contrast, the
record shows that constitutional liberalism tends to evolve even in weak electoral democracies that don't possess the institutional
and civic structures of mature free societies.¶ Despite the doubts of some critics, the
United States' promotion of
democratic values, civil society and democratic elections pursued vigorously under Presidents Reagan and Clinton has
done a great deal of good. It has transformed the political and economic face of Eastern
Europe and Latin America. It has brought hundreds of millions of people greater personal liberty and autonomy. It has
promoted democratic openings in Asia and Africa.¶ While it is right to take a hard look at what works and what doesn't in the effort
to expand the scope of democracy and human liberty, a decade of efforts to promote democratic transitions around the world has
not failed, as Stephen Rosenfeld suggests.
It has made the world a better place. But more important, the
promotion of democracy has increased the prospect that in the years ahead the world will be
better still.
AT: Backsliding
No backslide – democracies don’t revert back to autocracies and can be
stopped even if they start to
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: A second criticism of the logic of the democratic peace argues that democracies
cannot enjoy a perpetual peace among themselves because there is always a possibility that a
democratic state will become nondemocratic. This possibility means that even democracies
must be concerned about the potential threat posed by other democracies. John Mearsheimer
argues that: "Liberal democracies must therefore worry about relative power among
themselves, which is tantamount to saying that each has an incentive to consider aggression
against the other to forestall future trouble."77 In other words, the realist logic of anarchy,
which posits that states exist in a Hobbesian world of fear, suspicion and potential war, applies
even to relations between democracies.78¶ Response: There are four reasons for rejecting
claims that fears of democratic backsliding compel democracies to treat other democracies as
they would treat any nondemocratic state. First, the historical record shows that mature,
stable democracies rarely become autocracies.79¶ Second, democracies are able to recognize
and respond to states that are making a transition from democracy to authoritarianism.
Democratic states thus can pursue a policy of accommodation toward other democracies,
hedge their bets with more cautious policies toward unstable or uncertain democracies, and
abandon accommodation when democracies turn into nondemocracies. There is no reason to
assume that democracies will become autocracies overnight and then immediately launch
attacks on democracies.¶ Third, like some other realist arguments, the claim that states must
give priority to preparing for an unlikely dangerous future development rests on flawed logic.
It assumes that states must base their foreign policies almost entirely on worst-case scenarios.
Similar logic would imply that, for example, citizens in any country should act on the basis of
the assumption that domestic law and order might collapse into anarchy and violence.¶
Fourth, the claim that democracies must worry about the relative power of other democracies
(which may become autocracies) relies on the same shaky logic that predicts that states
cannot cooperate because they need to worry about the relative gains achieved by other
states. The relative-gains argument holds that in international politics, cooperation is rare
because it often gives greater gains to one state, and these relative disparities in gains can be
turned into advantages in power than can be used to threaten the state that gains less.80 The
relative-gains argument sometimes assumes that states have high and constant concerns about
relative gains. In practice, however, relative-gains concerns vary and are often almost
nonexistent.81
AT: Peace Theory Flawed
Prefer our evidence – criticisms of the structural/institutional theory for
democratic peace are flawed
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: Critics of the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace make
the following arguments. First, the structural-institutional model fails to explain why
democracies go to war with nondemocracies, even though they do not fight other democracies.
If leaders of democracies are constrained from going to war by the public, this constraint would
also prevent democracies from fighting nondemocracies.82 Many studies report, however, that
democracies have the same rate of war involvement as nondemocracies.¶ Second, critics argue
that the public is often just as warlike as the leaders that they are supposed to constrain. Public
jingoism and enthusiasm for war accompanied the outbreak of World War One and helped
cause the Spanish-American War. The structural-institutional model thus erroneously assumes
that the people are usually more pacific than their leaders.83 A related argument suggests that
recent extended intervals of peace may have led publics to forget the horrors of war. The end of
conscription in many countries and the tendency for wars to be fought by volunteer professional
armies may further erode public opposition to the use of force.84¶ Response: The criticisms of
the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace are not persuasive, for four
reasons. First, this explanation can account for why democracies only avoid wars with other
democracies, because democracies may behave differently toward states (i.e., democracies)
with domestic institutions that constrain their ability to go to war quickly. Democracies may
distinguish between states on the basis of their political institutions, and pursue different
policies toward those that are constrained by democratic institutions. Bruce Bueno de
Mesquita and David Lalman argue that "some political institutions help foster beliefs ... about
the dovish inclinations of certain states. Democratic institutions are visible signs that the state
in question is likely to face high political costs for using force in its diplomacy."85 A slightly
different form of the argument suggests that the constraints of democratic decision-making
become much more severe when the government of a democracy attempts to mobilize the
country for war against a fellow democracy. Thus the institutional argument does not actually
predict that democracies will pursue peaceful policies toward all types of states.¶ Second, the
institutional-structural explanation, properly formulated, need not rest on the assumption
that the public is peace-loving while leaders are eager to go to war. Some proponents of the
democratic peace proposition, including Immanuel Kant, have assumed that the people are
less eager to favor war, because they will ultimately be forced to pay its costs.86 The logic of
the theory, however, can be recast in terms of checks and balances. In a democracy, the
executive branch, legislative branch, and the public all constrain each other''s ability to make
rash and hasty decisions for war.¶ Third, the critics overlook how the existence of domestic
constraints in a pair of democratic states can enable a democratic dyad to spend more time
seeking a peaceful settlement of a conflict than a dyad with one or no democracies. If both
states in a crisis are unable to mobilize quickly, they will have more time to resolve the crisis
without war. Bruce Russett argues: "If another nation''s leaders regard a state as democratic,
they will anticipate a difficult and lengthy process before the democracy is likely to use
significant military force against them. They will expect an opportunity to reach a negotiated
settlement."87¶ Finally, critics of the institutional-structural explanation have not addressed
the claim that democratic institutions endow democracies with better information-processing
capabilities that enable democracies to limit the myths that cause war and to avoid wars
when international circumstances render war unwise.
No war – critiques of the statistical support for democratic peace are factually
inaccurate and/or skewed
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: Statistical critiques of the evidence for the democratic peace proposition
generally argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the absence of wars
between democracies is statistically significant. There are two underlying logics behind most of
these quantitative arguments. The first suggests that wars between a given pair of states are
relatively rare in international politics, so the absence of wars between democracies might be a
coincidence.97 The second argument claims that the absence of war between democracies is
only statistically significant after World War II, and that the democratic peace since 1945 has
been a product of the alignment of most democracies against the Soviet Union.98¶ Responses:
Many quantitative analyses conclude that challenges to the statistical significance of the
democratic peace do not withstand close scrutiny.99 Zeev Maoz has offered one of the most
comprehensive rebuttals of these arguments.100 He argues that Spiro''s own analysis predicts
far more wars between liberal dyads that actually occurred. Maoz also argues that it is
misleading to count all parties in large, multi-state wars as being at war with one another.
(E.g., Japan was not really "at war" with Bulgaria in World War I.) He notes that Spiro changes
the counting rule for the Korean War. Maoz and Russett focused on the "politically-relevant"
dyads, which account for most wars. Maoz also claims that slicing the data into one-year
segments makes finding any war statistically insignificant. Such slicing is like testing whether a
bowl of sugar will attract ants by assessing the statistical significance of finding an ant on an
individual grain of sugar. The odds that ants will be in the sugar bowl are high; the chances of
an ant being on a given grain of sugar, however, are so low that finding one on a grain would
not be statistically significant. When Maoz looks at politically-relevant dyads, he finds that
one would expect 57.63 liberal dyads at war between 1816 and 1986, but they find only one:
the Spanish-American War.101 He offers similar figures for the 20th century and for
militarized disputes. And when Maoz adopts Spiro''s suggestion to look at dyads over their
entire history, he finds that conflict actually fell when both countries in a dyad became
democratic.¶ The second argument also is unpersuasive, because Farber and Gowa make an
arbitrary decision to slice up the data into different periods and categories. Moreover, Maoz is
unable to replicate their results. Farber and Gowa appear to have miscounted the total
number of dyads.102
Impact – War (Impact Calc)
Prefer our evidence – even if democracies fight 0.1% of the time, that’s still a
reason to vote aff
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: Critics of the democratic peace point to apparent wars between democracies as
evidence that there is no democratic peace. They frequently cite the War of 1812, the SpanishAmerican War, Finland''s decision to align with Germany against the Western powers and the
Soviet Union during World War Two, the American Civil War, World War One, and the wars that
followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. At least 17 conflicts have been cited as
potential wars between democracies.93¶ Responses: There are three reasons to reject the claim
that the democratic peace proposition is invalid because democracies may have fought some
wars. First, the democratic peace proposition-correctly formulated-holds that democracies
rarely fight, not that they never fight. In social science it is probably impossible to generate
laws with 100% accuracy. Thus the correct formulation of the democratic peace proposition is
the statement that democracies almost never go to war with one another.94¶ Second, many
of the cases cited do not qualify as "wars" between "democracies." A closer examination of
the conflicts in question reveals that the apparent exceptions do not refute the democratic
peace proposition. In some cases, one of the participants was not a democracy. In 1812,
Britain was not a democracy. Spain''s democratic credentials in 1898 were dubious. Germany in
1914 was not governed by liberal principles and its foreign policy was directed by the Kaiser, not
the elected Reichstag.95 In other cases, no international war took place. The American Civil
War was not an international war. Finland engaged in virtually no direct hostilities with the
Western allies during World War Two; it fought almost entirely against communist Russia.96¶
Third, the criticism that democracies have fought one another is irrelevant to deciding
whether the United States should export democracy. The spread of democracy makes sense
as long as democracies are significantly less likely to go to war with one another. A policy of
spreading democracy would be justified if democracies have, for example, avoided war 99.9%
of the time; we can decide to spread democracy without debating whether the figure is 99.9%
or 100%.
AT: Alt Causes
No alt causes – empirics support that there’s no alt causes to the democratic
peace
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: Several critics of the democratic peace proposition claim that the absence of war
among democracies can be explained by the fact that democracies often have allied against
common threats. Democracies have avoided wars with one another not because they share
democratic forms of government, but because they have had a common interest in defeating a
common enemy. Thus the realist logic of balancing against threats explains the democratic
peace.103¶ Responses: There are three responses to the claim that allying against common
threats is a more important cause of peace among democracies. First, those who make this
argument overlook the fact that threat perceptions and alliance choice often reflect shared
values and political principles. These critics assume that alliance formation proceeds in strict
accordance with realist logic and that regime type plays no role. Democracies, however, may
have found themselves allied to one another against nondemocracies because they share a
commitment to democratic values and want to defend them against threats from
nondemocracies. Indeed, if the democratic peace proposition is only partially valid and if it is
at least dimly understood by decisionmakers, democracies will find other democracies less
threatening than nondemocracies and therefore will tend to align with them against
nondemocracies. This argument is consistent with Stephen Walt''s balance-of-threat theory,
which identifies offensive intentions as element of threat.104 If democracies regard one
another as having no offensive intentions toward democracies, they are likely to align against
nondemocracies.¶ Second, the tendency of democracies to ally with one another is further
evidence of the special characteristics of democratic foreign policy.105 The normative
explanation for the democratic peace would predict that democracies would be more likely to
form alliances. Instead of being a refutation of the democratic peace, the tendency of
democracies to ally with one another is actually an additional piece of confirming evidence.¶
Third, Maoz does an interesting test, examining whether states were allied before they
became democracies or allied only after they became democracies. He finds that "Non-aligned
democracies are considerably less likely to fight each other than aligned nondemocracies."106 This finding suggests that shared democracy-not alignment against a
common threat-has the most explanatory power in accounting for the absence of wars
between democracies.
No alt causes – lack of a chance to fight does not explain the democratic peace
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: Some critics of the democratic peace proposition claim that democracies have
not fought one another because they have not had the opportunity. Until recently, there were
relatively few democracies in the international system. Many were geographically remote
from each other.107
Response: The most sophisticated statistical analyses of the evidence for the democratic peace
take these variables into account and still conclude that there is a strong relationship between
democracy and peace.108
No alt causes – realism doesn’t explain the democratic peace
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: Skeptics suggest that, if the democratic peace proposition is valid, we should find
that pairs of democracies behave in crises in way that reveals that shared democracy, not
considerations of power and interest, caused them to avoid war. For example, tracing the
process of how events unfolded should reveal that the publics in democracies did not want war
with other democracies, that leaders did not make military threats against other democracies,
and that democracies adopted accommodating behavior toward other democracies.109
Examination of historical crises, however, reveals that democratic decisionmakers avoided war
because they feared defeat or that their states would be weakened in a conflict.110¶ Response:
Proponents of the democratic-peace proposition do not deny that considerations of power
and interest often motivate states.111 In the anarchic and competitive realm of international
politics, democracies cannot avoid making such calculations. Thus evidence that democracies
are sensitive to power and interest does not refute the democratic-peace proposition.¶ In
addition, critics of the democratic-peace proposition have not tested it fairly; they have not
deduced the full range of predictions that the normative and institutional model makes about
how democracies will avoid war. More comprehensive tests would also deduce and test
hypotheses about how many political and diplomatic aspects of crises between democratic
states differ from other crises. Such tests would also compare pairs of democratic states to
mixed and nondemocratic pairs. John Owen has conducted such tests and finds considerable
evidence to support the democratic-peace proposition.112
AT: Democratization leads to war
No risk of a turn – democratization does not lead to war, and even if it does it’s
still net better than not democratizing
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the
Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well
as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or
Projects: International Security, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
The Argument: One of the most important arguments against U.S. efforts to promote
democracy is the claim that countries engaged in transitions to democracy become more likely
to be involved in war. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder make this argument and support it
with statistical evidence that shows a correlation between democratization and war. They
suggest that several causal mechanisms explain why democratization tends to lead to war. First,
old elites play the nationalist card in an effort to incite conflict so that they can retain power.
Second, in emerging democracies without strong democratic institutions new rulers compete for
support by playing the nationalist card and search for foreign scapegoats for failures.113 This
type of electoral competition increases the risk of internal and international conflict.¶ The
argument that democratization causes war does not directly challenge the usual form of the
democratic peace proposition. Mansfield and Snyder recognize that "It is probably true that a
world where more countries were mature, stable democracies would be safer and preferable for
the United States."114 Instead, the arguments suggests that attempts to spread democracy
have significant risks, including the risk of war.¶ Responses: Mansfield and Snyder have advanced
an important new argument, but even if partially true, it does not refute the case for spreading
democracy internationally. Taken to extremes, the Mansfield/Snyder argument would amount
to a case for opposing all political change on the grounds that it might cause instability.
Promoting democracy makes more sense than this course, because the risks of
democratization are not so high and uncontrollable that we should give up on attempts to
spread democracy.¶ First, there are reasons to doubt the strength of the relationship between
democratization and war. Other quantitative studies challenge the statistical significance of
Mansfield and Snyder''s results, suggest that there is an even stronger connection between
movements toward autocracy and the onset of war, find that it is actually unstable transitions
and reversals of democratization that increase the probability of war, and argue that
democratization diminishes the likelihood of militarized international disputes.115 In
particular, autocracies are likely to exploit nationalism and manipulate public opinion to
launch diversionary wars-the same causal mechanisms that Mansfield and Snyder claim are at
work in democratizing states. Mansfield and Snyder themselves point out that "reversals of
democratization are nearly as risky as democratization itself," thereby bolstering the case for
assisting the consolidation of new democracies.116 In addition, very few of the most recent
additions to the ranks of democracies have engaged in wars. In Central and Eastern Europe,
for example, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have avoided major internal and external conflicts. Of these
countries, only Slovenia was involved in brief series of military skirmishes with Serbia.117
Russia has been involved in a number of small wars on or near its borders, but so far it has
undergone a dramatic transition toward democracy without becoming very warlike.118 There
is little evidence of international war in Latin America, which also has witnessed a large-scale
transition to democracy in recent years. Countries such as Mongolia and South Africa appear
to have made the transition to democracy without going to war. The new democracies
plagued by the most violence, including some former Soviet republics and the republics of the
former Yugoslavia, are those that are the least democratic and may not qualify as democracies
at all.¶ All of this evidence suggests that whatever may have increased the war-proneness of
democratizing states in the past may not be present in the contemporary international
system. It may be that states making the transition from feudalism to democracy became
more war-prone or that the emerging democracies of the 19th century were European great
powers that embarked on imperial wars of conquest. These factors will not lead today''s new
democracies into war. Finally, if the democratic peace proposition is correct, the higher
proportion of democracies in the current international system may further reduce the risk
that new democracies will not engage in war, because they will find themselves in a world of
many democracies instead of one of many potentially hostile nondemocracies.¶ Second, it is
possible to control any risks of war posed by democratization. Mansfield and Snyder identify
several useful policies to mitigate any potential risks of democratization. Old elites that are
threatened by democratization can be given "golden parachutes" that enable them to at least
retain some of their wealth and to stay out of jail.119 New democracies also need external
assistance to build up the journalistic infrastructure that will support a "marketplace of ideas"
that can prevent manipulation of public opinion and nationalistic mythmaking.120 Finally, an
international environment conducive to free trade can help to move new democracies in a
benign direction.121
AT: Transition Impossible
Now ripe for transition - Domestic conditions in Cuba triggered
Simonyi and Otero 3/12 - Ambassador András Simonyi (60) is the Managing Director of the Center for Transatlantic
Relations (CTR) at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Washington D.C.; and
former Ambassador of Bolivia to the United States. (András Simonyi and Jaime Aparicio Otero, the Huffington Post, “Cuba's Future
Transition to Democracy Can Be a Success,” 3/12/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andras-simonyi/cubas-future-transitiont_b_2859520.html, accessed 6/26/13, IS)
It is too early to say how Hugo
Chavez's passing will effect developments elsewhere in the region. One wonders first
Cuba is
and foremost about the consequences on and in Cuba. It is a reminder to the Castro brothers that power is ephemeral.
ready for change. In spite of the efforts by the regime to paint a rosy picture, eye witnesses tell a sad story. Living conditions
are bad, the economy survives only at the mercy of Venezuela. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission,
in its 2012 a report on Cuba, speaks of "permanent and systematical violations of the fundamental rights of Cuban citizens."
Ironically, however while the Cuban people suffer, the regime is internationally stronger than ever. Progressive rock musicians, like
Gorki in the band Porno Para Ricardo, are prevented from writing and performing freely. The international pressure for the respect
for human rights is weak and inefficient. It seems like the ethic conscience of the west is comfortable with the situation. It shouldn't
be. Solidarity with the people submitted to human rights violations by dictatorships is a moral imperative. However, the
opposition movement is gaining voice, even in face of a forgetful international community. They are increasingly selfconfident. Oswaldo Paya is now dead, but others, like Yoani Sanchez stepped into his place.
Courageous people, who defy threats and speak more and more openly about the true state
of the country. They deserve all the support they ask for. Cuba is ripe for change.
AT: No Rights Abuses
Be skeptical of their evidence – human rights abuses are rampant, but are often
covered up by the totalitarian Cuban government.
Rogers 4/18 - Crime and Courts Reporter for the Manrietta Times, expert on sociology and human rights in foreign nations
(Jasmine, Manrietta Times, “WSCC highlights human rights violations in Cuba,” 4/18/13,
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/573141/WSCC-highlights-human-rights-violations-inCuba.html?nav=5061, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
MARIETTA - In hopes of raising awareness about the ongoing human rights violations taking place in Cuba, Washington State
Community College is hosting a trio of Cuban human rights activists for a series of discussions that start today and lead up to an
open forum to be held at the college Saturday.¶ The three-day event is part of the Evergreen Arts and Humanities series.¶ "In
America, we don't hear a lot about human rights violations. We may hear something about
China, or North Korea or Burma. But rarely is the issue addressed concerning Cuba, which is only 90
miles away from American soil," said Tanya Wilder, chair of the Evergreen Arts and Humanities series. ¶ The event will feature John
Suarez, the International Secretary for the Cuban Democratic Directorate, Anna Lee, the Christian Solidarity Worldwide Advocacy
officer for Latin America and Laido Carro, president of the Coalition of Cuban-American Women and a Cuban exile.¶ Cuba
has
been under a totalitarian regime for 54 years, the longest running tyranny currently suffered
by any country, said Carro, who fled the country at age 12 shortly after the Cuban Revolution began.¶ "The brutality of
what is going on over there is not known because of the propaganda, because this is a police
state that uses all its resources to make sure the world thinks otherwise," said Carro, who regularly
communicates with activists still in Cuba.¶ The recent transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul in 2011 was followed
by a loosening of restrictions for Cubans who wanted to travel outside of the country.¶ However, the move was purely tactical, said
Carro.¶ The
government routinely kills and tortures dissidents who speak out against the Communist regime,
they don't believe you. It is a priority to make sure
she said.¶ "When you talk to people in other counties
everyone understands what is there 90 miles away," said Carro.
AT: Aff Worsens Human Rights
And the affirmative’s world of travel is not mutually exclusive from an
improvement in human rights. Capitalism and increased wealth are critical to
political and social freedoms.
Coyne 07 – Writer for the Economist in New York, analyst of economic development in rising nations. Also Harper Professor of
Economics at George Mason University. (Chris, The Economist, “Capitalism and democracy: friends or foes?,” 8/27/07,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/08/guest_blogger_chris_coyne, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
IN THE current issue of Foreign Policy, former U.S. secretary of labor, Robert Reich, contends that capitalism and democracy are not
complements as is often assumed. According to Mr Reich¶ Conventional
wisdom holds that where either
capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow. Yet today, their fortunes are beginning to
diverge. Capitalism, long sold as the yin to democracy’s yang, is thriving, while democracy is struggling to keep up. ¶ The cause of this
divergence, Mr Reich contends, is that companies seeking an advantage over global competitors have invested increasing amounts
of money in government lobbying, public relations and bribery. This process of corporations' “writing their own rules” has weakened
the ability of average citizens to have their voices heard through the democratic process.¶ Mr Reich is correct to emphasize the
importance of the rules of the games for economic, political and social outcomes. The rules of the game provide incentives for
individuals to pursue certain courses of action. Interactions by the same individuals will have very different outcomes under
different institutional arrangements.¶ The key, then, is to change the rules of the game so that the unproductive rent-seeking
activities of corporations are minimized. This is easier said than done. Although an increasing number of economists are exploring
the process of institutional change, our understanding of the mechanisms that facilitate sustainable change is still rudimentary.¶
While I agree with Mr Reich’s focus on the rules of the game, I
am not convinced that capitalism and democracy
are at odds. The late Milton Friedman emphasized that economic freedom promotes political
freedom and is also necessary for the sustainability of political freedom over time. His underlying
logic is that competitive capitalism separates economic power from political power . One could point
to Chile, Taiwan and South Korea as examples where Friedman’s logic seems to hold.¶ Tyler Cowen and Eric Jones
have highlighted the cultural gains from capitalism. They conclude that trade in cultural products exposes societies
to alternative institutions, values and ideals. Based on this same reasoning, I have written on the
importance of free trade in goods, services and cultural products as a means of exporting the
foundations of liberal economic, political and social institutions.
AT: US Forcing Demo on Them
Cuban populous wants democracy
UPI, 2011 (“Poll: Cubans want democracy”, 11/23, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/11/23/Poll-Cubans-wantdemocracy/UPI-67761322080731/)//AB
Some three-quarters of the people of
Communist Cuba largely favor switching to democracy and
a market economy, results of a poll indicate. El Nuevo Herald in Miami reported Wednesday the poll by the
International Republican Institute found three of four Cubans favor multiparty elections,
freedom of expression and other aspects of democracy. It also said nearly 90 percent said they
want to convert to a market economy, including the right to own property and run their own
businesses. The survey also found 70 percent of respondents are skeptical of Cuban President Raul
Castro's reforms, with 52 percent saying they don't see any evidence of reform. "There are a lot of headlines here in the U.S.
about changes coming to Cuba, but IRI's survey shows that the Cuban people themselves are not necessarily
seeing it so far," IRI President Lorne W. Craner said in a statement Monday. The poll was conducted in July and is based on the
responses of 572 adult Cubans. The newspaper didn't report a margin of error.
AT: Castro Democratizing Now
Liberalization is not happening in the SQ. Castro hasn’t and won’t do anything
to liberalize his people.
Miami Herald 2/26 (The Miami Herald, “Cuba’s Raúl Castro’s proclaimed changes are no more than lipstick on a
zombie,” 2/26/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/26/3255364/cubas-raul-castros-proclaimed.html, accessed 6/28/13, IS)
In Juan of the Dead, an enterprising but admittedly lazy Cuban and his small band of friends face a Havana full of zombies (the
regime claims they are dissidents but Juan knows better) by starting a zombie-disposal service. At one point in the comedic, awardwinning Spanish film made in Cuba, Juan answers the phone and a plea to get rid of “the old man” with a subtle line: “ Compañero,
you’ll have to handle that family matter yourself.”¶ After 54 years of the Castro brothers’ communist dictatorship, a new generation
of Cubans want to take charge of their destiny, to rid themselves of the zombies who blindly follow the Castros.¶ On Sunday, Raúl
Castro seemed to toss them a lifeline — the 81-year-old successor to his ailing brother Fidel says he’s leaving Cuba’s presidency in
five years and that the communist island’s constitution will soon include term limits for future leaders.¶ Castro tapped Miguel DiazCanel, a 52-year-old engineer, now seen as his potential successor, for first vice president. He also shook up the rubber-stamp
National Assembly by promoting 69-year-old Esteban Lazo Hernandez, Cuba’s highest ranking black official, to replace Ricardo
Alarcon, 75, who served for two decades as assembly president.¶ No doubt, Raúl
Castro expects the international
community to see these changes as the Great Awakening for Cuba’s leadership gerontocracy, a
“historic transcendence” for a new generation to take the mantle and for Afro Cubans to finally bust the iron ceiling that has kept
black Cubans from key positions.¶ If
only that were so. This is nothing more than lipstick on a zombie .¶
The dictatorship may get a new face but no one elevated by Fidel or Raúl Castro can be
considered a Cuban leader in the image of, say, the former Soviet Union’s reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev.¶
Indeed, Diaz-Canel is not the first “young” leader to be seen as a potential heir to lead the one-party state. Remember former
Foreign Ministers Roberto Robaina and Felipe Perez Roque? Or former Vice President Carlos Lage? All have disappeared from public
view, ousted by the Castro brothers when they became too big for their political britches.¶ As
for U.S. policy toward
Cuba, there’s nothing in Sunday’s proclamations from Havana that would warrant a thawing
of relations. The Obama administration already has made it easier for Cuban Americans to visit their loved ones in Cuba and
send remittances. As the State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell noted on Monday, the United States remains “hopeful for
the day that the Cuban people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick their own leaders. We’re
clearly not there yet.Ӧ Certainly the Helms-Burton law that maintains the U.S. embargo requires more than a promise of
some elusive change five years from now when the dictatorship will be 59 years old.¶ Diaz-Canel, a former higher education minister
and ex-head of the Communist Party in Villa Clara and Holguin provinces, has been traveling with Raúl Castro on key missions abroad
and leading delegations on other trips. He is reported to have been in charge of many of Raúl Castro’s economic changes, such as
allowing the sale of homes and lifting travel restrictions for some Cubans. All
these are seen as efforts to bolster
Cuba’s ever-depressed top-down economy, which Raúl Castro maintains are ways to “perfect
socialism, not destroy it.Ӧ Like we said, lipstick on a zombie.
AT: Tourism Now
Cuba’s tourism industry is running low
Tamayo, 6/18 – (Juan, “Cuba cites drop in U.S., European arrivals as tourism sags”, Miami Herald, 6/18,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456404/tourism-to-cuba-sags-mostly-because.html)//AB
Cuba’s tourism arrivals shrank by nearly 5 percent in April compared to the same month last year, largely
because of significant drops in visitors from the United States and southern Europe, according to official reports. But its income from
tourism held steady, apparently as Cuba raised its prices and reached out to more big-spending tourists, moving away from its
traditional attractions of low-cost, all-inclusive beach resorts. Cuba’s National Statistic Office (ONE) reported that tourist
arrivals fell from 288,000 in April of last year to 274,000 in the same month this year — a 4.9 percent drop. The 1.2 million
visitors for the first four months of this year was 1.4 percent down from the same period in 2012. Of the 18 source countries listed
separately by ONE, the three at the top — Canada, United Kingdom and Germany — saw increases of 1.3 percent, 8.1 percent and
11.8 percent, respectively. Visitors from
Spain plunged by 29.5 percent from April to April — from 6,359 to 3,834
by 7.2 percent and from France by 6.8 percent, according to the ONE report. But the most
significant drop was in the “other” category, which ONE uses to lump together arrivals from the United States and all
other countries with less than 2,000 or so tourists. That fell from 63,248 in April of last year to 54,771 this
April — 13.4 percent. Arrivals from “other” countries also fell from 258,378 in the first quarter of 2012 to 243,782 in the same
— from Italy
period this year, according to ONE. Johannes Werner, editor of the Tampa-based Cuba Standard, a publication that tracks the
island’s economy, said the drop in Spanish and Italian arrivals reflected the financial crisis lashing those countries. Spain, for
instance, has 20 percent unemployment. “This shows the continued weakness of the southern European markets, which have been
historically strong sources of tourists for Cuba,” Werner said. As for the drop in U.S. arrivals, Werner said he could only speculate
that the
initial wave of interest in travel to Cuba after the Obama administration began easing
restrictions on such travel in 2008 “has flattened out a bit.” Cuba travel industry officials in Miami told El Nuevo Herald
in February that only 45 charter flights to the island were scheduled for March, compared to 60 in
September.
***Gradualism Adv.***
1AC
Gradual change away from the status quo is key – lifting the travel ban paves
the way for the lifting of the embargo. Lifting the embargo now bad.
McNea 4/29 – (Megan McNea, “US Cuba Embargo,” 4/29/13,
http://prezi.com/svleohtxhrkz/us-cuba-embargo/, accessed 6/29/13, IS)
we
should slowly lift the embargo. How we should start is we should send only food aid to help the
citizens of Cuba then we should let two way travel between US and Cuba. Then we should
open up trade to benefit both countries. Cuba and the US only started to be at odds Jan. 1, 1959, when
Background Information Main Players Reasons to keep the embargo Reasons to get rid of the embargo My opinion is that
revolutionary Fidel Castro had overthrown the US-backed President Batista and established Cuba as the first Communist state in the
Western Hemisphere.From 1959 to 1960, Castro seized $1.8 billion of US assets in Cuba, making it the largest uncompensated taking
of American property by a foreign government in US history.¶ On Oct. 19, 1960, President Eisenhower signed a partial embargo on
exports to Cuba, the first step towards the US policy that exists today. One reason for Eisenhower signing for the partial embargo
was that he felt that there was a threat being posed by having a Soviet ally so close to America’s shores.¶ Later when Kennedy was
President He approved a 1961 plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro's communist regime, but the Apr. 17,
1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed when the Cuban military defeated the outnumbered US-backed forces. Then the situation got worse
when a spy plane came back with evidence of there being nuclear missiles in Cuba. On February 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed
Proclamation 3447 (effective date February 7, 1962) to declare "an embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba."
One year later, on February 8, 1963, the United States prohibited travel to Cuba [37] and in July of that year the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations (CACR) [36] were issued as a comprehensive economic sanction outlawing financial transactions with Cuba.
President Eisenhower: Approved the beginning of the embargo, President Kennedy: Started the ban on travel and trade with Cuba,
Fidel Castro: The power hungry dictator that was the leader of Cuba when the embargo started. The
embargo may finally
be working, Castro remains defiant. He refuses to allow true free-market reforms and rejects democratic political reforms.
Instead, he is conducting an aggressive international campaign to get the embargo lifted without
making any economic or political concessions in return. The policy has been useless as a tool for cudgeling
Castro, and it is hindering opportunities for American industries from travel to banking to agriculture, which is why there's no
shortage of U.S. business groups lobbying to ease it. Far from hurting the deplorable Communist regime, the embargo has only given
Castro an excuse to rail against Uncle Sam, both to his own people and to the world. Every year, Cuba asks the United Nations for a
vote lifting the embargo. What happens? We usually end up with a couple of superpowers like Palau and the Marshall Islands
standing with us. Last year, the vote was 183 to 4. The embargo makes us look like an arrogant bully. My Opinion US Cuba Embargo
Castro is trying to force the United States to lift the embargo in order to resuscitate his dying communist regime with billions of
dollars in trade, investment, and international aid. ,//;. Citations 1."Economic Embargo Timeline." Economic Embargo against Cuba.
N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. 2."Keep The Embargo On Cuba -- Heritage." Keep The Embargo On Cuba -- Heritage. N.p., n.d. Web. 28
Apr. 2013. 3."Letters to the Editor." The Miami Herald. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.
Incremental change in policy increases trade, US national security and
environmental protections
Boston Globe 2/09 (Boston Globe Editorial, “Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too” 2/09/13,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-intocentury/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html, 7/1/13,)
¶ RELATIONS BETWEEN the United States and Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full economic embargo in
1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change the status quo. Yet
while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The communist government of the ruling
Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba
instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled
to return home.¶ These changes, and the beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunity to acknowledge Cuba’s
gestures and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the
Castros, the
Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ The CubanAmerican population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting greater
contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of
Florida voters. Because of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as
Romney — has more maneuvering room politically.¶ The first step would be to end the silly claim, reinstated by the
Obama administration last summer, that Cuba remains a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The administration argued that Cuba
harbored members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. It has, but the FARC and Colombia are now in
negotiations; those peace talks are supported by the Obama White House in order to end a bloody civil war.¶ By
depoliticizing
the Cuba portfolio, the United States could then begin to lessen trade restrictions, starting
with promoting cultural exchanges; ending the travel ban; and eventually allowing for trade in
oil, gas, and other commodities. Over time , billions of dollars in new trade between the two
nations will benefit both. This would include boosts to US farm companies while helping
Cubans.¶ Direct relations would also further US national security and environmental interests;
as Cuba opens up, other countries will sweep in to seek influence, as China has already done.
Especially as Cuba increasingly promotes offshore drilling and other maritime exploration, the
United States must improve communication with Havana. Currently, even though the United
States and Cuba are separated by a narrow channel, the two countries have no bilateral
communications to ensure safety standards for their mutual protection from oil spills.¶ Secretary of
State John Kerry should make Cuba a focus of his first months in office. Unfortunately, his successor as chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee is Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a son of Cuban immigrants who has opposed the administration’s
efforts to ease relations. Menendez will need to be convinced that he can help Cubans more by resetting American policy. ¶
Absent military intervention, there are very few opportunities for a president to dramatically
alter relations with a historic foe; Obama has taken such advantage of a disorientingly rapid
liberalization by Burma’s military rulers. Raul Castro’s recent decision to lift travel restrictions
on Cuban citizens is similarly momentous — and signals that the timing is ripe for a new
diplomatic agenda with Cuba.
Ext. Plan  Lifting Embargo
Easing restrictions leads to the end of the embargo
Schlesinger 9 [ROBERT SCHLESINGER, Obama's Revamp of Cuba Travel Policy Is Overdue, But the Embargo Should Come
Next, US News and World, 4/14/09, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/14/obamas-revamp-of-cuba-travel-policyis-overdue-but-the-embargo-should-come-next]
As an American, I enjoy the right to travel virtually anywhere without interference from my government. It's one of the things that
set us apart from the authoritarian regimes to which we hold ourselves up as a beacon and an example. But there's one exception,
one country over which the U.S. government abrogates its citizens' freedom of travel. Is it North Korea, the outlaw, nuclear-saberrattling regime that starves its citizens? No, any of us can legally head west for a demilitarized zone vacation. Perhaps it's Iran,
America's biggest Middle Eastern adversary and another possible nuclear threat? Nope.¶ The
only country to which
Americans are barred from traveling is neither a rival nor a threat. It is Cuba, the last bastion of
domestic Cold War politics.¶ That may soon change. In anticipation of this week's summit with Latin American and Caribbean
leaders, President Obama rolled back restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the island or sending money to their families
there. Last week, members of a congressional delegation had constructive meetings with former Cuban President Fidel Castro and
his brother Raúl, the current president. And a bipartisan group of members of Congress, backed by a formidable coalition of U.S.
business interests, is pushing legislation that would lift the travel ban for all U.S. citizens. They are optimistic of passing it this year.¶
Easing travel restrictions would be a good first step, but only as prologue to the main event: lifting the
U.S. embargo against Cuba. There are several good reasons, substantive and political, to modernize our Cuba policy (and
not simply my own desire to enjoy a Cuba libre and a Cohiba cigar while strolling the beaches of Varadero).
The Cuban Embargo and Travel Barrier are counterproductive, and hurting squo
US/Cuba relations
Rep. Lee 10 [Rep. Barbara Lee, California’s 9 District, Huffington Post, 8/19/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/repth
barbara-lee/mr-president-lift-the-tra_b_687580.html]
It is far past time that we end the counterproductive and unnecessary travel ban.¶ If one examines the history
of American foreign affairs, it is hard to find a policy that has lasted for as long, yet so obviously failed,
as our trade embargo of Cuba. If someone had told President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 that the Cuban embargo would
last 50 years, would Eisenhower have considered a different approach?¶ We'll never know, but what we do know is that a
half-century of the embargo hasn't brought down Castro's government. And it certainly hasn't
helped Americans in any way. At long last, the time has come for the embargo to end.¶ The old
cliché says that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result." Yet whenever the
question of the embargo is raised, its defenders say we need to keep it in place so we can keep pressure to promote democratic
reforms, including greater freedom of speech, religion, and association. This is the same argument that has been made for 50 years.
The embargo didn't bring about democratic reform in 1960, or 1970, or 1980, and it won't do
so in 2010. We need to try a new approach.¶ That approach is engagement - individual,
cultural, and economic. It won't be only Cubans who will reap the benefits. The House Agriculture
Committee recently passed the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. It
lifts all restrictions on travel to Cuba, and allows American farmers to sell their crops to this waiting market just a few miles off our
shores. It will be an important first step, but we need to go even farther, to eliminate the trade embargo that has failed for so long.¶
The result will be hundreds of millions of dollars coming into the American economy, and the creation of thousands of American
jobs. And when Cubans start buying our goods and forming relationships with Americans, the path to their future - a democratic and
prosperous one - will become clearer than ever.¶ If
we can allow travel and trade with nations such as China
and Vietnam, then surely we can move forward with lifting the travel ban and ending the
embargo with Cuba.
Incremental Key – Peaceful Transition
Lifting the travel ban key to successful transition – only slow transition leads to
peace
Arzeno 03 – Master of Business Administration, University of Miami (Mario A., “The U.S.
Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change?” Master of Military Art and Science Strategy, page 49,
2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, Accessed 30 June 2013
The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by
gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic
Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition: Diplomatic. Open dialogue with the government of Cuba.
Fidel Castro says he wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. should capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open dialogue
with China; Cuba should be no different. This idea will also open doors to establish relationships with the progressive Cuban leadership willing to consider change. The Bush
Administration should also consider supporting the Cuba Working Group’s 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform.
Information. Reform TV and Radio Marti by taking it out of the Cuban American National Foundation’s span of influence. Place it under the control of a non-partisan government
organization that can develop a robust and meaningful information campaign targeted towards the Cuban people and reform. Conduct an information campaign within our own
borders to educate the American public on the costs and benefits of helping the Cuban people.
Military. Militarily engage Cuba by including it in one of the Unified Commands. Develop long term bilateral cooperation with the Cuban military and incorporate their armed
forces in multilateral cooperation throughout the Caribbean region.
Economic. Incrementally lift the embargo beginning with the lifting of the travel ban and the
49
restrictions on the sale of food and medicine, followed by reforming the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-Burton Act.
Incremental Key – Internal Progress
Gradual lifting best – provides incentives for additional Cuban progress
Ledger 11 – Lakeland newspaper (“Tourism vs. Embargo: Time to Engage Cuba,” 24 August 2011,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730
better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic embargo and measured moves
If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws moves
forward, that development could be — and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and
establishing political ties. Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in order to
promote additional progress.
A
toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relationships.
Incremental Key – Bargaining Chip
Gradual key to ensuring US maintains influence in Cuba
Kagan 08 – American historian, author and foreign policy commentator at the Brookings
Institution (Robert, “A Card to Play for Cuba's Freedom,” The Washington Post, 20 February 2008, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-0220/opinions/36789855_1_opposition-parties-international-election-monitors-cuban-government, Accessed 29 June 2013
lifting of the embargo could be undertaken in stages linked to the fulfillment by the Cuban government of key conditions
necessary for holding elections. These would include allowing genuine independent opposition parties to function, freeing the press and other media
The
and opening them up to the opposition, allowing international nongovernmental organizations to provide elections training and technical assistance to the Cuban people -- in
taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election campaign in which opposition parties
have an equal chance to participate and compete.¶ With international monitors in place months in advance of any vote, the
actions of the Cuban government could be watched and evaluated for compliance by
members of the U.S. Congress and respected international figures. The Bush administration could determine at each stage whether
conditions had been met that would allow the gradual lifting of specific aspects of the embargo.
short,
Incremental Key – Laundry List
[Needs terminal impacts]
Incremental change key to regime change, relations, agriculture, and growth
Zimmerman 10 - Barnard College (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade
Embargo: An Opportune
Time To Mend a Broken Policy,” Published 2010,
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, accessed
6/30/13, IS)
This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but
I will now focus on the¶ costs and benefits
of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S.
needs¶ to adopt a new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and¶
waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach¶ 9¶ when trying
to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created¶ by the change in leadership of both countries and
with the recent reforms¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the state’s information¶ monopoly. The
opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit
far outweigh the¶ risks. Benefits
for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions ¶
with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from¶ substantial revenue
increases derived from a more significant share of food exports¶ to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays
caused by travel restrictions,¶ and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S.¶ government
will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3)¶ funds wasted on
attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million
annually, instead can be used for¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S.¶
Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and¶
investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and¶ redirected to a more
practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad;¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s
most important allies¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform¶ measures (Sweig)..¶
***Constitutionality Adv.***
Travel Ban Violates Constitution
Squo policy violates the 5th Amendment
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international
human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding
Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
The Supreme Court has recognized that the United States Constitution's substantive due process guarantees include a limitation on
the government's ability to restrict travel. Among other things, the
Fifth Amendment requires that any
restriction on a citizen's right to travel must be justified by a government interest important
enough to outweigh that right. In the past, the Court has sided with the U.S. government and upheld Cuba travel
restrictions based on the government's argument that "interests of national security" outweighed any right to travel to the island.
However, since
reimposing the travel restrictions in 1982, the U.S. government has consistently
claimed that the restrictions on travel-related transactions are intended to cut off the flow of hard
currency to Cuba. 1 Whether such a governmental interest could withstand constitutional challenge
under even rational review, given the clear infringement of U.S. citizens' right to international travel, is
highly dubious- particularly when considered against the $600 million to $1 billion sent to Cuba in recent years in the form of
permissible remittances.2 While we support the Administration's changes concerning remittances last year as a matter of principle
and policy, the reality remains that a portion of that multi-million dollar export to the island nation inevitably returns to the
to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions
remains irrational and unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within
the country.
Cuban state. Thus,
I/L – Violating Constitution  Liberty
Our freedom of movement is being unjustly broken by the travel embargo on
Cuba, causing a loss of liberty
Thomson, 1/3 – (Wendy, “Air travel is a right”, TSA News, 1/3/13, http://tsanewsblog.com/8414/news/air-travel-is-aright/)//AB
The Judge also sent a strong message as to the hurdle the DOJ would have to overcome regarding air travel: “The
right to
travel here and abroad is an important constitutional right. To deny this right to a citizen . . .
based on inaccurate information without an effective means of redress would
unconstitutionally burden the right to travel. While the Constitution does not ordinarily agree the right to travel
by any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for
international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being
prohibitively expensive or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.” This isn’t exactly new, as so eloquently stated in Kent v.
Dulles (1958): “The
right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived
without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In
Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the
Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this
freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and
inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country,
may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice
of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”
Cuba travel is a Constitutional right, so voting negative is a violation of the
Constitution
Mozer 11 (David Mozer, IBF, “Cuba Right to Travel: The Constitutional Case,’ 2011, http://www.ibike.org/cuba/ofac/law.htm,
accessed 6/27/13, IS)
The arguments for rights of Americans to travel to Cuba are primarily grounded in
amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These expand out to include the rights of to travel
abroad, to seek information relevant to public issues through foreign travel, and to exchange
information and views with people in other countries; rights derived from the First and Fifth
Amendments of the "Bill of Rights."¶ Before the "Bill of Rights," in Anglo-Saxon law, the of the right to travel emerges
at least as earl as the Magna Carta. Article 42 reads:¶ It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to
return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the
common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at
war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.¶ In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499 -500, the
United States Surpeme Court stated that: "Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty' with any great precision, that term
is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is
free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."¶ In the U.S., the right to travel is derived
from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.¶ "The right to
travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . .
Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like
travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads.
Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."¶ The case involved the Secretary of States refusal to issue a passport
because the plaintiff wouldn't file an affidavit regarding his political beliefs. In the majority (5-4) opinion Justice William Douglas
wrote"¶ The
right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived
without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In
Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of
1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement
across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the
country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears,
or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly
harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id. at 197.
The Fifth Amendment is largely important for our freedom
Postell, 07 – (“Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights”, 12/14/07,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-andimportance-of-the-bill-of-rights)//AB
There is one final question to be answered: Even if Madison believed that a bill of rights could be framed--as ours surely
was--with the intent of preventing the implication of powers not granted to the government by
the Constitution, what benefit could be gained by it? Was it not Madison who argued most forcefully that we
cannot trust in parchment barriers? The answer is that Madison indeed thought ambition would counteract ambition,
to "oblige the government to control itself" This was the idea of checks and balances. But it does not explain how the Founders
proposed to safeguard individual liberty from tyranny of the majority, rather than tyranny of the rulers over the ruled. The
safeguard of individual liberty, Madison reasoned, must lie with the people themselves. It is the people
who must be responsible for defending their liberties. And a bill of rights, Madison and his colleagues
finally concluded, might support public understanding and knowledge of individual liberty that would
assist citizens in the task of defending their liberties. A bill of rights, they saw, could serve the noble
purpose of public education and edification. As Madison confided to Jefferson, "The political truths declared in that solemn
manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the
national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion." From this view, our
first 10 amendments are still
important today, in their text and substance, beyond their legal effect. They still call upon us to study them for the
sake of knowing our liberties and defending them from all encroachments. Although these amendments may be nothing more than
"parchment barriers," they can still provide a bulwark against encroachments on our rights. For as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84,
the security of liberty, "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether
depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all...must we seek for
the only solid basis of all our rights."
Impact – Liberty Impacts
Upholding liberty is a key importance for all humans to live and a reason to
vote aff
Fried, 05 – (Charles, “The Nature and Importance of Liberty”, 9/22/05, pg. 1)
liberty is an
expression of what is valuable about us as human beings. It is a natural law idea; that is to say, it is
a moral imperative based on what is fundamental (another moral idea) about our human nature. I
would say that what is important about us, what makes us moral human beings, is our individual
capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality. Individuals,
What is liberty, and why is it important? Why do we care about it? The first premise that I offer here is that
therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual responsibility for our lives, and our
choices. And if a person is to count as a person—and here we have the difficult questions about the beginning and the end of life—
then we are all equally valuable in this same way. It is from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our
goods: that we choose what to make of the only life we will ever have.
My liberty, then, is my ability to choose that
life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that good of
the other is worth no more than mine because he is not worth any more than I am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual
noninterference: an equal right. By the same token, nobody
can interfere with or draft another person to
help him achieve his own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that
campaign.
Liberty and freedom are the most important impacts – undermining them leads
to chaos and tyranny
Petro, 1974 – (Sylvester, 1974, University of Toledo Law Review, pg 4801 FG)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to
bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is
unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there
have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism,
and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in
freedom as a supreme value and the Proper ordering; principle for any society aiming to
maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically
identified and resisted with undying spirit.
Liberty is key to a large amount of human entitlements
CATO, 2012 – (“Policy Forum: The Importance of Liberty: At Home and Abroad”, 6/7/12,
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2012/policy-forum-importance-liberty-homeabroad)//AB
The American people are ready to hear the truth. They know our government is out of control. And the only
thing they care more about than today is tomorrow — because tomorrow is about our children and grandchildren, and today is just
about us. The bottom line is we took action — we did it with solid principles and strong leadership — putting our state's interests
ahead of partisan ones. We turned Trenton upside down. And in the difficult times that America is in now, the
only way to
govern is by treating our citizens as adults — by telling them the truth about the depth of our challenges
and the difficulty of the solutions. When we fail to do this, we pay the price as a country many times over. The
domestic price is obvious: growth slows, unemployment persists, and we make ourselves even more
vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of rightfully skittish markets. But there's also a foreign policy
price to pay. To begin with, we diminish our ability to influence the thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. Democracy
is the best protector of human dignity, liberty, and freedom — and history shows that mature democracies
are less likely to resort to force against both their citizens and their neighbors. Yet, all across the world — in the Middle East and Asia
and Africa and Latin America — people are debating their own political and economic futures. They're looking for inspiration, and we
have a stake in the outcome of those debates. There's no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for
more open societies and marketbased economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working well. At one time in our
history, our
greatness was a reflection of our country's innovation, determination, ingenuity,
and the strength of our democratic institutions. When there was a crisis in the world, Americans found a way to
come together to help our allies and fight our enemies. When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the
greater public interest first. Today, our ability to effect change has been diminished because of our own
inability and unwillingness to effectively deal with our problems. Now, I understand full well that succeeding at home and setting an
example is not enough. But it's a start. And I realize that what I'm calling for requires a lot of our elected officials and our people. I
plead guilty to that. But I also plead guilty to being an optimist, because I believe in what this country and its citizens can accomplish
if they understand what's being asked of them. We seem to have forgotten that this is a human business. Day after day, I've spent
time sitting with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, convincing them of my intentions and letting them know that I don't believe
compromise is a dirty word. There's always a boulevard between compromising your principles and getting everything you want.
You should never compromise your principles. But you also need to understand that you're not always going to get everything you
want. The job of a leader is to find your way onto the boulevard between the two without driving into the ditch of compromising
what you believe. And trust me, if you can do this in New Jersey, you can do it anywhere. That's where my optimism comes from.
See, I'm not looking to be loved. I get plenty of love at home — and when you're looking for love in this job, that's when deficits get
run up. However, if you make people understand that you're willing to say no, but you're also always willing to listen — that you're
willing to stand hard on principles, but you're also willing to compromise when those principles won't be violated — then respect
will come. It's
about being consistent. It's about leading by example. It's about standing up for
the things that we believe in, instead of simply trying to figure out which way the wind's
blowing. There's no need for varnish anymore. In fact, I don't think we have the luxury to put it on. Liberty and freedom
and the human spirit are the most powerful things in the world — and we need to say that
directly to the American people. They're ready to hear it.
Impacts – Freedom
The government breaking the Constitution takes away human freedoms and
sinks the economy
Ringer, 12 – (Robert, “America’s Problem is Government Taking Away People’s Freedom: Does Rick Santorum Agree with Ron
Paul?”, A Voice of Sanity, 3/22, http://avoiceofsanity.com/roberts-insights/americas-problem-is-government-taking-away-peoplesfreedom-does-rick-santorum-agree-with-ron-paul/)//AB
To say the least, I’m not a big Rick Santorum fan. Even so, I am obliged to say I was impressed by his statement earlier this week that
“the issue in the presidential race is not the economy, but an oppressive government that’s taking away people’s freedom.” Love
him or hate him, Santorum was spot on with that one. The ever-worsening state of the economy (and, yes, it is getting worse) is but
a symptom of the ever-worsening state of our freedom (the cause). The government cannot “fix” the economy. Only free people
can do that. The government, however, is quite capable of making the economy worse. George W. Bush proved that, and Barack
Obama is making him look like a free-market champion by comparison. Kids
who can’t open a lemonade stand
without fear of being fined are not living in a free country. An Idaho couple that has to take
its case all the way to the Supreme Court just to earn the right to challenge an Environmental
Protection Agency ruling that their property is a “protected wetland,” and that they are
therefore barred from building on it, is not living in a free country. When the government can
take your money and redistribute it to others, force you to buy a product you do not want, spy on you without
cause, even kill you — you are not living in a free country. Ron Paul has been preaching this message for more
than three decades, so, quite naturally, he is reviled by the establishment in both wings of the Demopublican Party. In case you’ve
never seen them before, here are Paul’s Six Forgotten Principles of Freedom: Rights
belong to individuals, not
groups. Property was intended to be owned by people, not governments. All voluntary associations should be permissible, both
economic and social. The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not to participate in fraud by
debauching it. The justification for the existence of government is to protect the liberty of individuals, not to redistribute wealth or
pass out special privileges. People’s
lives and actions are their own responsibility, not the
government’s.
Unconstitutionality leads to tyranny, killing our freedom
Roland 12- founder of Constitution Society, which works to educate the public of the
principles of constitutional republican government.
[Jon Roland, “Principles of Tyranny”, Constitution Society, 6/19/12,
http://constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm, accessed 6/29/13]
Definition of tyranny: Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term
was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have
tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems
benign is inherently dangerous, and the
only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the
a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and
the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands
people through the framework of
of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.¶ Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it
can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before
it becomes entrenched.¶ The psychology of tyranny¶ Perhaps one of the things that most distinguishes those with a fascist mentality
from most other persons is how they react in situations that engender feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. Both kinds of people
will tend to seek to increase their power, that is, their control over the outcome of events, but those with a fascist mindset tend to
overestimate the amount of influence over outcomes that it is possible to attain. This leads to behavior that often brings them to
positions of leadership or authority, especially if most other persons in their society tend to underestimate the influence over
outcomes they can attain, and are inclined to yield to those who project confidence in what they can do and promise more than
anyone can deliver.¶ This process is aided by a common susceptibility which might be called the rooster syndrome, from the old
saying, "They give credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun." It arises from the tendency of people guided more by hope
or fear than intelligence to overestimate the power of their leaders and attribute to them outcomes, either good or bad, to which
the leaders contributed little if anything, and perhaps even acted to prevent or reduce. This comes from the inability of most
persons to understand complex dynamic systems and their long-term behavior, which leads people to attribute effects to proximate
preceding events instead of actual long-term causes.¶ The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group,
develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of
"father" to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent "children" of such persons if only they are reassured that a
more favorable outcome will be realized. This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decisionmaking of
poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the codependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of
the group and the worst of the available outcomes.¶ In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an "authoritarian personality
disorder". In common parlance, as being a "control freak".¶ The logic of tyranny¶ In Orwell's classic fable, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the
protagonist Winston Smith makes a key statement:¶ Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted,
all else follows.¶ Following the trial of the surviving Branch Davidians in San Antonio, Texas, in March, 1994, in which a misinstructed
jury acquitted all the defendants of the main crimes with which they were charged, but convicted them of the enhancements of
using firearms in the commission of a crime, the federal judge, Walter F. Smith, first dismissed the charges, correctly, on the grounds
that it is logically impossible to be guilty of an enhancement if one is innocent of the crime. However, under apparent political
pressure, he subsequently reversed his own ruling and sentenced the defendants to maximum terms as though they had been
convicted of the main crimes, offering the comment, "The law doesn't have to be logical."¶ No. The law does have to be logical.
Otherwise it is not law. It is arbitrary rule by force.¶ Now by "logical" what is meant is two-valued logic, which is sometimes also
called Boolean, Aristotelian or Euclidean logic. In other words, a system of propositions within which a statement and its negation
cannot both be true or valid. One of the two must be false or invalid. The two possible values are true and false, and every
meaningful proposition can be assigned one or the other value.¶ A system of law is a body of prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive,
propositions, that support the making of decisions, and therefore its logic must be two-valued. It is a fundamental principle of law
that like cases must be decided alike, and this means according to propositions that exclude their contradictions.¶ It is also a
fundamental principle of logic that any system of propositions that accepts both a statement and its negation as valid, that is, which
accepts a contradiction, accepts all contradictions, and provides no basis for deciding among them. If decisions are made, they are
not made on the basis of the propositions, but are arbitrary, and that is the definition of the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of
law.¶ So what Winston Smith is saying is that freedom means being able to distinguish between a true proposition and a false one,
and what his nemesis O'Brien therefore does to crush him is make him accept that "2 + 2 = 5", which cannot be true if the logic is
Aristotelian. O'Brien represents the logic of arbitrary power, a "logic" we might call Orwellian, although Orwell, whose real name
was Eric Blair, was strongly opposed to it.¶ The methodology of tyranny¶ The
methods used to overthrow a
constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is
surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite
their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.¶
Control of public information and opinion¶ It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or
misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public
information" or "marketing".¶ Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers¶ It doesn't matter which of the two major
party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of
elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.¶ Undue official influence on trials
and juries¶ Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument
on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making
effective arguments or challenging the government.¶ Usurpation of undelegated powers¶ This is usually done with popular support
for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to
the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.¶ Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of
armed force¶ The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of
"protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting
more people and more weapons.¶ Militarization of law enforcement¶ Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war
on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.¶ Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be
forces for reform¶ Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders. ¶ Suppression of
investigators and whistleblowers¶ When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system
is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny. ¶ Use
of the law for
competition suppression¶ It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and
suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to
suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.¶ Subversion
of internal checks and
balances¶ This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then
induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with
unconstitutional acts by the other branches.¶ Creation of a class of officials who are above the law¶ This is indicated by dismissal of
charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".¶ Increasing dependency of the people on government¶ The
classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with
the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.¶ Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform
them¶ When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.¶ Use
of
staged events to produce popular support¶ Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with
well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.¶ Conversion
of rights into privileges¶ Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to
restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.¶ Political correctness¶ Many if not most people are
susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the
dominance of tyrannical government.¶ Avoiding tyranny¶ The key is always to detect tendencies toward tyranny and suppress them
before they go too far or become too firmly established. The
people must never acquiesce in any violation of
the Constitution. Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe
measures will have to be taken later, perhaps with the loss of life and the disruption of the
society in ways from which recovery may take centuries.
It is vital for our freedom that we preserve our democratic rights
Stverak 13- president of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity
[Jason Stverak, “Upholding our Constitution is not a partisan issue, it's an American issue”, Fox
News, 6/13/13, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/13/upholding-our-constitution-isnot-partisan-issue-it-american-issue/, accessed 6/28/13]
To many Americans, Karim’s tragedy seems like an awful story of abuse in far off country, but this week, we learned that the United
States government isn’t much different. The NSA now has access to records of every call made on Verizon cell phones in America,
and is separately authorized by the Patriot Act to conduct wiretaps. We recently learned that the NSA is pulling our personal
information, photos, and emails from the servers of popular websites like Google, Facebook, and YouTube, and that they’re tracking
our credit card purchases as well. While we don’t yet know what the Obama administration plans to do with the details of who
we’re calling, how long we’re speaking to them, and where we’re calling from, that’s beside the point. The real issue at stake is the
growing chasm between the powers we granted to government in our Constitution, and the powers government has seized. Civil
liberties were at the core of the American founding, and the recognition of these liberties in
our Constitution and Bill of Rights is supposed to separate us from the totalitarian
dictatorships of the world. But these liberties are quickly eroding, and all Americans, regardless of their
political leanings, should be deeply concerned about the gross abuses of power we’ve seen from the Obama
administration in recent weeks. Even politicians as different in their views as Vice President Al Gore and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz agree:
the government has infringed too far on our personal lives and liberties, and it’s time to take a stand. A
thousand paper cuts can be as deadly as a single gunshot, and our civil liberties are bleeding out from the sheer volume of direct
attacks by the Obama administration. Whether it’s the IRS auditing grandmothers who have worked with the Tea Party, or the EPA
targeting conservative groups, or the Justice Department harassing reporters, or even HHS extorting funds from health insurance
providers, every day we learn about a different department violating our rights. What’s scariest of all is that these each of
these
scandals continued for months or even years before they came to light.
It’s fair to wonder exactly how
many other federal agencies are abusing power, targeting the administration’s foes, and invading our privacy under the cover of
darkness. In fact, at this point, all areas of government deserve a healthy degree of suspicion. In
the era of the
paternalistic surveillance state--where government gives itself permission to invade your
privacy because it think it knows what is “best” for you--blind indifference is possibly the most
dangerous threat to our freedoms.
Impacts – Value to Life
Liberty is an a-priori concern which much be kept strong
McMilian, 2011 – (Marlene, “Does Liberty REALLY Matter?”, Why Liberty Matters, 2011,
http://www.whylibertymatters.com/)//AB
This is a crucial time for our Liberty. We have recently witnessed the biggest economic disruption in the history
of the world, and almost instantly seen the United States Constitution eroded in a way that threatens
every Liberty we have so long taken for granted. The time for vigilance of our Liberty has become even more
important. Liberty is a powerful concept. It affects everything that happens to you and every
choice you have the ability to make.
It affects the way you raise your children, the place you live, the daily freedoms
you do or do not have, and your ability to fulfill your God-given Kingdom purpose.
Liberty affects everything and
everyone. Every decision you make either leads you toward greater liberty or toward bondage. What is Liberty? “Liberty is the
opportunity to make a choice to assume responsibility and accept the consequences.” Liberty is a God-given idea placed within the
heart of all peoples. As the people in this Nation have looked to civil government as their source, we have lost many of our essential
Liberties. Liberty entails responsibility. You cannot be dependent on someone else and free at the same time. Control follows
money. He who pays controls. If you want to pick the restaurant for dinner, just say you are buying and everyone will be happy to
eat where you are paying. Some believe that the civil government owes them. They want the handouts without any strings attached,
yet all government money comes with strings attached. This entitlement mentality takes away a person’s freedom to determine
their own destiny. Whoever controls the money controls everything else. If you want to control your own destiny, then you must
control your own money and not be dependent on anyone else. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is considered normal in
our society. However, government redistribution of wealth is a fundamental belief of communism. Therefore, it cannot be a
principle of Liberty. The
instability of recent days is a clarion call for everyone to get informed about
Liberty. Most Americans would tell you they are still free. And even though we still have more
freedom than most countries of the world, we have exchanged many of our Constitutionallyguaranteed Liberties for the illusion of safety and protection.
Liberty and freedom are key for our value to life – this outweighs their impacts
Michael, 3/17 – (Christian, “Freedom More Important Than Security, Stability, Life”
christianmicheal, 3/17/13, http://christianmichael.org/2013/03/17/freedom-more-importantthan-security-stability-life/)//AB
Throughout history, this climb from freedom into various securities has manifested itself in
variable ways, ranging from secular and holy monarchy, to dictatorship and junta, to parliamentary empire, to shades of
democracy, to various forms of governmental union, all promising to do for the people after convincing the
people that the people, themselves, could not do it. Those attempts at security, though, eventually turn on the
people, and they turn begging for freedom, all the while forgetting they ran as surely from freedom as they eventually
run from their government. A key difference is that freedom never indoctrinates people to believe they need
it. Instead, it is something they realize on their own — after enough people have died — that freedom is the only
route to happiness . Those who fight for freedom know best its value, but so often fail to transfer that understanding to
doesn’t use scare
tactics, or squeeze dissenters, discredit disbelievers or use the media to show them how
wrong they are. Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair
their freedoms. People will keep you in check when you fringe upon their freedoms, but no one will keep you from giving up
your own. Governments, on the other hand, don’t want you to believe that you can do without them. They will do
everything in their power to illustrate how dangerous freedom is, how much you need to give up your
their children. Soon those children, or their children, fail to see freedom’s value. After all, freedom
freedom so they can protect you, provide for you, and keep you from having to take responsibility for your own life, security and
fate. “But people might hurt you! Mother nature might take away your possessions and loved ones! Terrorists will hate you for your
from the government to your ears: “Without us, you’re nothing but a
target for evil.” And they’d be wrong. Freedom, when exercised by people who take responsibility for themselves
freedom!” In other words,
and voluntarily for their neighbors,
breeds the very best in humanity, promoting self-management, self-rule, selfresponsibly free people govern themselves, and that makes
all the difference! The nature of government (generic) is all about control. Who should be most in
regulation, moderation, growth and mercy. A
control? The best answer: human beings who govern themselves and leave everyone else to govern their own lives. No human is
more capable of running someone else’s life — we’re all equally flawed, just in different ways. But freedom won’t fight for itself.
Freedom, by its very nature, doesn’t attempt to take from you, hurt you or control you. Freedom
says: You’re a human
being with a mind for thinking and a heart for feeling. Learn to control them, and yourself, and live in harmony with
those around you. Don’t presume that what works for you will work for anyone else, and if it does, sell people on the merits of it,
ultimately letting them choose for themselves over forcing them to do as you think best. By returning to freedom, we loosen people
from the debilitating effects Government has on human minds. Like unshackling a slave who has been convinced those shackles can
never be released, it will scare people to think that what they were convinced of was wrong. People are frightened of losing those
shackles. They’ve been taught those shackles are for their safety, like an abusive husband who has convinced his wife that she
cannot survive without him, all the while preying on her hard work and good heart. But the covenant she made was to a healthy
relationship and a man he used to be, or portrayed himself to be. It will take her being hit too often, and her own children come
under threat, before she realizes that anything is better than the soft-talking government who cannot survive on its own, who needs
someone to own and control. Without a willing populace, the government is weak and easily destroyed. In order to return people to
freedom will require fighting the people more than fighting the government. And to do so, it can’t be done by forcing them to it, by
the very token that freedom forced will taste more bitter than the abuse already suffered at the government. Like all good things in
the community of freedom, we must convince people of its merit, of its long-term value to benefit people of all walks and all ages, to
illustrate that they will come to a better tomorrow with less control and more contentment. Freedom
is vital. All people
die, but dying under freedom is better than under government. We must each learn why
freedom is important to us and then show it to others, and help them discover their own full
potential under freedom. Until then, this fight will go nowhere.
Violating the constitution loses the battle for our way of life
Weinstein 03- Associate professor at University of Nevada
[Jonathan Weinstein, “When Do We Need the Constitution?”, The New York Times, 11/9/03,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/opinion/l-when-do-we-need-the-constitution041734.html, accessed 6/30/13]
The Constitution has ever been in danger in times of conflict and fear. We must never lose sight of the fact that
the battle against terror is also a battle for our way of life and the ideals on which our nation
was founded. When we violate the inalienable rights of detainees, when we respond to attacks on our society
by becoming, however slightly, more like those societies we abhor, the battle is already lost.
The Supreme Court must send a sharp message that the Constitution is not just for easy times.
Allowing the government to break the Constitution leads to a world where the
American populous has no value to life.
Napolitano, 2004 – (Andrew, “How the Government Breaks the Law”, CATO Policy Report,
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2004/11/cpr-26n6-1.pdf)//AB
Ultimately,
the fate of American liberty is in the hands of American voters. Though we are less free
with every tick of the clock, most of us still believe that the government is supposed to serve
the people—fairly, not selectively. There are some surprisingly direct ways to address the excesses I’ve described. First,
Congress and the state legislatures should enact legislation that simply requires the police, all other law
enforcement personnel, and everyone who works for or is an agent of the government to be governed by, subject
to, and required to comply with all the laws. That would eliminate virtually all entrapment, and it would enhance
respect for the law. If the police are required to obey the same laws as the rest of us, our respect for them and for the laws
they enforce would dramatically increase, and their jobs would become easier. In short, it would be against the law to
break the law. Second, Congress and the state legislatures should make it easier to sue the federal and state governments for
monetary damages when they violate our constitutional liberties. The federal government and many states have
rendered themselves immune (called “sovereign immunity”) from such lawsuits if the lawsuit attacks the exercise of
discretion by government employees. That is nonsense. You can sue your neighbor for negligence if his car runs over your
garden or your dog. You can sue your physician if he leaves a scalpel in your belly. You should be able to sue the local police, state
police, and the FBI under the same legal theories if they torment you, prevent you from speaking freely, bribe witnesses to testify
against you, steal your property, or break the law in order to convict you.
If the Constitution is enforced selectively,
according to the contemporary wants and needs of the government, we will continue to see public trials in some cities and
secret trials in others; free speech suppressed on inexplicable whims; police targeting the weak and killing the innocent; and
government lying to its citizens, stealing their property, tricking them into criminal acts, bribing its witnesses against them, making a
mockery of legal reasoning, and breaking
the laws in order to enforce them. This is not the type of government
we, the people, have authorized to exist, and it is not the type of government that we should
tolerate. We can do better. If government crimes are not checked, our Constitution will be
meaningless, and our attempts to understand it, enforce it, and rely on it will be chaotic.
International Law
Travel ban violates international law
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international
human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding
Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
We write to you concerning anticipated changes to United States-Cuba policy, and specifically the expansion of travel opportunities
from the U.S. to Cuba. While we applaud the Administration's reinstatement of the general license for family travel and remittances
last year, the
U.S. has yet to eliminate the irrational and unlawful prohibition against travel to Cuba
by non-Cuban Americans. The existing restrictions on travel raise serious constitutional and
international human rights concerns. The Administration should take corrective measures
which would bring the U.S. closer to compliance with the U.S. Constitution and international
human rights law.
Lifting the Ban Solves Violation
Removing the ban aligns US with international law
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international
human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding
Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
allowing permissible travel to Cuba would be one step in bringing the U.S. into
compliance with the mandates of international law. The United Nations has passed nearunanimous resolutions condemning the U.S. embargo against Cuba, including its travel ban, as a
violation of international law every year since 1992. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Finally,
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), to which the United States is a party, recognize the fundamental nature and
importance of protecting the freedom of movement. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration in part provides that: "Everyone has
the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."3 Similarly, Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees that
"Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own," and further states that this right "shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or
morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant."4 None
of these exceptions are triggered in the case of travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba.
***Agriculture Add-on***
Tourism leads to growth of US agriculture
Center for Democracy in the Americas et al 9 [Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America
Working Group, the Lexington Institute, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, TRAVEL TO CUBA
HELPS U.S. FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL BUSINNESS IN OUR NATIONAL, 2009, INTERESTS
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/trade_talking_points.pdf]
3.
U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba would significantly bolster sales of U.S. ¶ agricultural goods to
restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba were lifted, the annual U.S. share of ¶ Cuba's
total agricultural imports would nearly double to as much as 64%, from ¶ the current 38%, an increase of up to
Cuba. ¶ • If
$483 million in sales to Cuba, according to ¶ 2008 figures from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). ¶ • According to the
USITC, U.S.
sales to Cuba could reach $1 billion, or nearly a ¶ two-thirds share of the market – but only with a
substantial increase in the ¶ numbers of tourists traveling to the island. The Commission indicates that ¶
removing financial and travel restrictions on Cuba would result in at least a 300 ¶ percent increase in
American visitors to the island – such a jump could result in as ¶ many as a million U.S. visitors per year. ¶ • This
increase in American tourism to Cuba would vastly increase U.S. ¶ agricultural sales to Cuba, for
example: ¶ driving up general demand for a variety of staples such as wheat, poultry ¶ and eggs. ¶
increasing demand for brands of processed food such as soft drinks and ¶ snacks that are
familiar to American tourists, as well as luxury items like ¶ California wine, Pacific wild salmon and Florida Black Angus
beef. ¶ • If restrictions on travel and trade were removed, sales of 15 of the top 16 U.S. commodities exported to Cuba would
increase. ¶ According to projections by the U.S. International Trade Commission. ¶ Sales of wheat would increase ($17 million to $34
million); rice ($14 ¶ million to $44 million); fresh potatoes, fruits, and vegetables (a rise of $37 ¶ million to $68 million annually);
processed foods ($26 million to $41 ¶ million); milk powder ($15 million to $42 million); dry beans ($9 million ¶ to $22 million); and
poultry, beef, and pork each increasing by about $9 ¶ million to $13 million). (USITC, 4-4) ¶ • In these difficult economic times, it is in
our best interest to allow greater trade ¶ opportunities, such as in Cuba, for American businesses to sell their goods abroad.
***Relations Add-On.***
Plan  Increased US-Cuba Relations
Plan jumpstarts larger changes in US-Cuba relations
Patchen and Rodriguez, 10 [Carl Patchen and Katya Rodriguez, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Travel to Cuba
Legislation Mired by Scandal, Fierce Opposition,” Truthout, 5/22/10, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/89731:travel-to-cubalegislation-mired-by-scandal-fierce-opposition]
If the United States truly wishes to improve its relationship with the Cuban government and to
strengthen ties with other leaders across Latin America, it must part ways with its archaic
policies by engaging the island nation and taking a more responsible approach toward promoting freedom across Cuba.
Congressman James McGovern (D-MA), a co-sponsor of H.R. 874, effectively summarized his colleagues’ goals for building a
constructive relationship with Cuba during a February statement on the floor. He stated that “if we are truly going to do a better job
of standing with the Cuban people, then we
need to be closer to them and in greater numbers. We need
to travel freely to the island to meet and to learn from them and they from us.” Many Americans
share Representative McGovern’s sentiments and see free travel to Cuba as a way to jumpstart talks
between the two nations. Unfortunately, it appears that efforts to implement this straightforward policy remain bogged
down by an influential group of opponents and a series of setbacks that have kept Cuba and the U.S. at odds. Given these
regrettable conditions, it is doubtful that new travel laws, which would expose ordinary Cubans to American culture and boost
Cuba’s tourism industry and informal economy, will be implemented any time soon.
Plan increases relations
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international
human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding
Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
The Center for Constitutional Rights has long advocated for changes to the U.S. policy toward Cuba, based on intemational law,
constitutional law, and moral principles. Expanding
the ability of U.S. citizens to travel to the country
would be a first step in reforming what individuals across the political spectrum have acknowledged to be a
mistake if not total failure in foreign policy, and in keeping with this Administration's efforts
to restore U.S. relations abroad.
Impacts –
Good US-Cuba Relations key to US hegemony
Tisdall, Simon, 4/8/13 (Simon Tisdall is assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the
Guardian and the Observer and served as White House correspondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., “Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make
up”, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba)
Right-wing U.S. Republicans are up in arms over Cuba again. Their ostensible cause for concern is last week's visit to the island by Beyoncé and Jay-Z,
who were photographed in Havana, apparently celebrating their wedding anniversary. Read more: Lawmakers ask why Beyoncé and Jay-Z went to Cuba
These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. The 60-year
stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is
absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War
anachronism, kiss and make up. Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens'
travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear among right-wingers. Two key factors have changed since the days -- not so long ago -- when Washington
seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style overthrow. One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat.
As Barack Obama enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may use his freedom of action to effect an
historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals certainly believe he should do so. The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now
led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform. The government -- dubbed the world's longest-running
dictatorship by the American right -- has even set a date for its own dissolution. Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February
that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career
communist, first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen. The two
Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and
beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population.
The Cuban vote, as it is known, has traditionally gone to Republicans. But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate and division. He
broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the
past may be breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The National Interest. "Having won nearly half
of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he
would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.
Little wonder Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political raison d'etre. There are
other reasons for believing the
time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of
Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both
political and financial. Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did
not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not
take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba. The so-called
"pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries
such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin
America as a whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including
Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China. The
stand-off over Cuba is an
obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa.
The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United
Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU. But more importantly, the
continued ostracism of Cuba's people -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S.
wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two
countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.
Soft Power is key to Hegemony
Nye, Joseph Jr., 2004 (Joseph Samuel Nye, Jr. (born January 19, 1937) is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University. He currently holds the position of University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University[ where
he has been a member of the faculty since 1964, “The Benefits of Soft Power”, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html)
The dictionary says that leadership means going ahead or showing the way. To lead is to help a group define and achieve a common purpose. There are
various types and levels of leadership, but all have in common a relationship with followers. Thus leadership and power are inextricably intertwined. I
will argue below that many leadership skills such as creating a vision, communicating it, attracting and choosing able people, delegating, and
forming coalitions depend upon what I call soft power. But first we should ask, what is power? What is power? At the most
general level, power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants. There are several ways to affect the behavior of
others. You can coerce them with threats. You can induce them with payments. Or you can attract or co-opt them. Sometimes I can affect your
behavior without commanding it. If you believe that my objectives are legitimate, I may be able to persuade you without using threats or inducements.
For example, loyal Catholics may follow the Pope's teaching on capital punishment not because of a threat of excommunication, but out of respect for
his moral authority. Or some radical Muslims may be attracted to support Osama bin Laden's actions not because of payments or threats, but because
they believe in the legitimacy of his objectives. Practical politicians and ordinary people often simply define power as the possession of capabilities or
resources that can influence outcomes. Someone who has authority, wealth, or an attractive personality is called powerful. In international politics, by
this second definition, we consider a country powerful if it has a relatively large population, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military
force, and social stability. The virtue of this second definition is that it makes power appear more concrete, measurable, and predictable. Power in this
sense is like holding the high cards in a card game. But when
people define power as synonymous with the
resources that produce it, they sometimes encounter the paradox that those most endowed with
power do not always get the outcomes they want. For example, in terms of resources, the United
States was the world's only superpower in 2001, but it failed to prevent September 11.
Converting resources into realized power in the sense of obtaining desired outcomes requires
well-designed strategies and skillful leadership. Yet strategies are often inadequate and
leaders frequently misjudge—witness Hitler in 1941 or Saddam Hussein in 1990. Soft power
rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. Measuring power in terms of resources
is an imperfect but useful shorthand. It is equally important to understand which resources provide the best basis for power behavior in
a particular context. Oil was not an impressive power resource before the industrial age, nor was uranium significant before the nuclear age. Power
resources cannot be judged without knowing the context. In some situations those who hold high office, command force, or possess wealth are not the
most powerful. That is what revolutions are about. Soft power Everyone is familiar with hard power. We know that military and economic might often
get others to change their position. Hard power can rest on inducements ("carrots") or threats ("sticks"). But sometimes you
can get the
outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. The indirect way to get what you want has sometimes been
called "the second face of power." A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries admire its values, emulate its
example, aspire to its level of prosperity and openness. This soft power—getting others to want the outcomes that you want—co-opts people rather
than coerces them. Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. In the business world,
smart executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves leading by example and attracting others to do what
you want. Similarly, contemporary practices of community-based policing rely on making the police sufficiently friendly and attractive that a community
wants to help them achieve shared objectives. Political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction. If
I can get you
to want to do what I want, then I do not have to use carrots or sticks to make you do it. Soft power
is a staple of daily democratic politics. The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive
personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If a leader represents values that
others want to follow, it will cost less to lead. Soft power is not merely the same as influence. After all, influence can also rest on the hard power of
threats or payments. And soft power is more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument, though that is an important part of it. It is
also the ability to attract, and attraction often leads to acquiescence. Simply put, in behavioral terms, soft power is attractive power. Soft power
resources are the assets that produce such attraction. If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking
place—in short, if my behavior is determined by an observable but intangible attraction—soft power is at work. Soft power uses a different type of
currency—not force, not money—to engender cooperation. It uses an attraction to shared values, and the justness and duty of contributing to the
achievement of those values. The interplay between hard and soft power Hard and soft power are related because they are both aspects of the ability
to achieve one's purpose by affecting the behavior of others. The distinction between them is one of degree, both in the nature of the behavior and in
the tangibility of the resources. Command power—the ability to change what others do—can rest on coercion or inducement. Co-optive power—the
ability to shape what others want—can rest on the attractiveness of one's culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices
in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic. The types of behavior between command and
co-option range along a spectrum from coercion to economic inducement to agenda-setting to pure attraction. Soft power resources tend to be
associated with the co-optive end of the spectrum of behavior, whereas hard power resources are usually associated with command behavior.
Hard
and soft power sometimes reinforce and sometimes interfere with each other. A leader who courts popularity may be loath to
exercise hard power when he should, but a leader who throws his weight around without regard to the
effects on his soft power may find others placing obstacles in the way of his hard power. The
limits of soft power Some skeptics object to the idea of soft power because they think of power narrowly in terms of commands or active
control. In their view, imitation or attraction do not add up to power. Some imitation or attraction does not produce much power over policy
outcomes, and neither does imitation always produce desirable outcomes. For example, armies frequently imitate and therefore nullify the successful
tactics of their opponents and make it more difficult for them to achieve the outcomes they want. But attraction often
does allow you to
get what you want. The skeptics who want to define power only as deliberate acts of command and control are ignoring the second or
"structural" face of power—the ability to get the outcomes you want without having to force people to change their behavior through threats or
payments. At the same time, it is important to specify the conditions under which attraction is more likely to lead to desired outcomes, and those
when it will not. All power depends on context—who relates to whom under what circumstances—but soft power depends more than hard power
upon the existence of willing interpreters and receivers. Moreover, attraction
often has a diffuse effect of creating
general influence, rather than producing an easily observable specific action. Just as money can be invested, politicians speak of storing up
political capital to be drawn upon in future circumstances. Of course, such goodwill may not ultimately be honored, and diffuse reciprocity is less
tangible than an immediate exchange. Nonetheless, the
indirect effects of attraction and a diffuse influence can
make a significant difference in obtaining favorable outcomes in bargaining situations. Otherwise
leaders would insist only on immediate payoffs and specific reciprocity, and we know that is not always the way they behave. Soft power is also likely
to be more important when power is dispersed. A dictator cannot be totally indifferent to the views of the people under his rule, but he can often
ignore popularity when he calculates his interests. In settings where opinions matter, leaders have less leeway to adopt tactics and strike deals. Thus it
was impossible for the Turkish government to permit the transport of American troops across the country in 2003, because American policies had
greatly reduced our popularity there. In contrast, it was far easier for the United States to obtain the use of bases in authoritarian Uzbekistan for
operations in Afghanistan. The information revolution The conditions for projecting soft power have transformed dramatically in recent years. The
information revolution and globalization are transforming and shrinking the world. At the beginning of the 21st century, those two forces have
enhanced American power. But with time, technology will spread to other countries and peoples, and America's relative preeminence will diminish.
Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes. Even more important, the information revolution is creating virtual communities and
networks that cut across national borders. Transnational corporations and nongovernmental actors will play larger roles. Many of those organizations
will have soft power of their own as they attract citizens into coalitions that cut across national boundaries. Political leadership becomes in part a
competition for attractiveness, legitimacy, and credibility. The ability to share information—and to be believed—becomes an important source of
attraction and power. This political game in a global information age suggests that the
relative role of soft power to hard
power will likely increase. The most likely gainers in an information age will have: multiple channels of communication that help to frame
issues, cultural customs and ideas that are close to prevailing global norms, and credibility that is enhanced by values and policies. Soft power resources
are difficult to control. Many of its crucial resources are outside the control of governments, and their effects depend heavily on acceptance by the
receiving audiences. Moreover, soft power resources often work indirectly by shaping the environment for policy, and sometimes take years to
produce the desired outcomes. Of course, these differences are matters of degree. Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes—
witness the length and ultimate failure of the Vietnam War, or the fact that economic sanctions have historically failed to produce their intended
outcomes in more than half the cases where they were tried. But generally, soft power resources are slower, more diffuse, and more cumbersome to
wield than hard power resources. Information is power, and today a much larger part of the world's population has access to that power.
Technological advances have led to dramatic reduction in the cost of processing and transmitting information. The result is an explosion of information,
and that has produced a "paradox of plenty." When people are overwhelmed with the volume of information confronting them, it is hard to know what
to focus on. Attention rather than information becomes the scarce resource, and those who can distinguish valuable information from background
clutter gain power. Editors and cue-givers become more in demand. Among editors and cue-givers, credibility is an important source of soft power.
Politics has become a contest of competitive credibility. The world of traditional power politics is typically about whose military or economy wins.
Politics in an information age may ultimately be about whose story wins. Reputation has always mattered in political leadership, but the role of
credibility becomes an even more important power resource because of the paradox of plenty. Information that appears to be propaganda may not
only be scorned; it may also turn out to be counterproductive if it undermines a reputation for credibility. Under the new conditions more than ever,
the soft sell may prove more effective than a hard sell.
Finally, power in an information age will come not just from
strong hard power, but from strong sharing. In an information age, such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also
increases their inclination to do so. As we share with others, we develop common outlooks and approaches that improve our ability to deal with the
new challenges. Power
flows from that attraction. Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely ephemeral popularity ignores
key insights from new theories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. Conclusion Soft power has always
been a key element of leadership. The power to attract—to get others to want what you want, to frame the issues, to set the
agenda—has its roots in thousands of years of human experience. Skillful leaders have always understood that attractiveness stems from credibility and
legitimacy. Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear. When the
United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in the way it went about its policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop
in American soft power. That did not prevent the United States from entering Iraq, but it meant that it had to pay higher costs in the blood and treasure
than would otherwise have been the case. Similarly, if
Yasser Arafat had chosen the soft power model of Gandhi or
than the hard power of terrorism, he could have attracted moderate
Israelis and would have a Palestinian state by now. I said at the start that leadership is inextricably intertwined with
power. Leaders have to make crucial choices about the types of power that they use. Woe be to followers of those leaders
who ignore or devalue the significance of soft power.
Martin Luther King rather
***US Influence Add-on***
Plan leads to increased influence over Cuba
Center for Democracy in the Americas et al 9 [Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America
Working Group, the Lexington Institute, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, TRAVEL TO CUBA
HELPS U.S. FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL BUSINNESS IN OUR NATIONAL, 2009, INTERESTS
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/trade_talking_points.pdf]
In addition to helping to create the substantial market Cuba should provide ¶ American farmers, travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens helps
in creating the kind of ¶ dialogue and social interchange that Cuba hasn’t seen in decades. ¶ • People-to-people
exchange
¶ understanding, transmits ideas, and generates debate. As Cuba’s people and
¶ government contemplate their future, unrestricted American travel to Cuba will ¶ help position our
people, our values, and our businesses, and enhance our ¶ influence.
between Americans and Cubans promotes
America’s influence in Cuba is crucial for foreign policy
Sabatini and Berger 12- Sabatini is the editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and the senior director of policy at
Americas Society/Council of the Americas and Berger is a policy associate at the Americas Society.
[Christopher Sabatini and Ryan Berger, “Why the U.S. can’t afford to ignore Latin America”, CNN.com, 6/13/12,
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/, accessed 6/27/13]
Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its strategic calculations:¶ 1. Today, pursuing
a global
foreign policy requires regional allies.¶ Recently, countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking
positions diametrically opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance and human rights. Take, for example,
Russia and China’s stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention.¶ Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave off the tightening
of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to intervention in Libya, leading
political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.”¶ At a time of (perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s
important that America deepens its ties with regional allies that might have been once taken
for granted. As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for permanent seats on the U.N. Security
Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, the U.S. will need to integrate them into global decision-making
rather than isolate them.¶ If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it tries to implement its foreign policy
agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine efforts to defend international norms and
human rights.
Cuba Key to Greater LA
Cuba is critical to America’s image in LA
Perez 10 – J.D. Yale Law School (David A. Perez, Harvard Latino Law Review 13 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 187, “America's Cuba
Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department”, Spring, 2010, accessed 6/26/13)
When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are
organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire
system's stability. Cuba , despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America , having
disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades. n6 As a
result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation [*192] in the region has suffered, as
has its ability to deal with other countries. n7 For fifty years, Latin American governments that
hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables
have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's economic image
in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own . n8 In short, America must once
again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. To that end,
warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and
would go a long way toward creating goodwill.
***Caribbean Tourism Add-on/AT: DA***
Add-on
US travel to Cuba trades-off with travel to other Caribbean states
Romeu 8 - a Senior Economist at the International Monetary Fund, where he has worked since 2001 (Rafael Romeu, IMF,
“Vacation Over: Implications for the Caribbean of Opening U.S.-Cuba Tourism,” published July 2008,
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08162.pdf, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
Economic diversification requires finding an instrument that identifies visitor preferences in a market
in a hypothetical post-opening of Cuba-U.S. tourism. Previous work has found that measures of national
culture (or cultural distance) are a useful instrument for predicting such preferences. In other words, measures
of cultural distance identify OECD tourists with destination preferences that differ from U.S. tourists. As the likelihood of Cuba
opening to U.S. tourism were to rise, Caribbean competitors would need to hedge potential tourist
losses to Cuba by diversifying to from US. tourists, therefore diversifying the Cuban economy, and toward culturally different
countries. This effect would be strongest and most observable for Caribbran destinations that are most dependent on U.S. tourists.
This effect would also be most observable whenever it were to appear that the Cuba-U.S. tourism restrictions might be lifted. In such
times, heavily U.S.-dependent countries would have a strong incentive to diversify away from U.S. tourists, that is, reduce * in
Equation (8). At times when these tourism restrictions are very unlikely to end, they would have little incentive to do so.
Tourism ruins Caribbean culture and economy—it also ruins the environment
and cultural stability
McDaniel 10 – Paul holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in geography from Samford University and the
University of Tennessee and a Master of Arts in Education from the University of Alabama. He is pursuing a Ph.D. in geography from
the University of North Carolina. [http://www.ehow.com/facts_5561618_effects-tourism-caribbean.html The Effects of Tourism in
the Caribbean 6.29.13]
The travel industry and tourism have had significant effects on the Caribbean region. These effects range
from positive to negative, particularly in relation to the local cultures, policies, economies, environments and people of the many
Caribbean islands. The major effect is that many Caribbean island countries' economies are highly reliant on the travel and tourism
Caribbean island tries to maintain its own distinct history and culture. When
these cultures come into contact with the strong forces of globalization, maintaining traditional local
culture often becomes quite difficult.¶ Effects on Politics¶ Island governments often have a ministry of tourism to oversee
industry.¶ Effects on Culture¶ Each
the country's advocacy for increased tourism and travel industry development, which adds jobs and contributes to an island's
economy.¶ Effects on Economy¶ Economic effects, both positive and negative, are perhaps the most visible of tourism effects on
the Caribbean. These include island nations' utmost reliance on tourism and travel as the predominant industry. However, because
many tour and travel companies are not always based in a particular island country, much of the
profit does not stay on
the island.¶ Effects from Industry Cycles¶ Travel and tourism can be a very cyclical industry, with travel increasing and
decreasing as a result of fluctuations in the global economy. When the travel industry is bustling, the Caribbean is able to attract
many visitors from around the world, but in tough economic times fewer people spend money on travel, leading to fewer people
visiting and spending money in the Caribbean.¶ Effects on Environment¶ Tourism
can have environmental effects
on Caribbean islands, such as hordes of cruise ship tourists flocking onto and off of islands each day,
consuming energy and resources. Additionally, local ecosystems and environments can be
affected by cruise ship and land-based resort activities
Ext.- Link
Increased Travel to Cuba will be devastating for Caribbean economies
Sanders 09 [Sir Ronald, 4/19. Sir Ronald Sanders is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies,
University of London in the UK. He is an International Consultant, Writer and former senior Caribbean Ambassador.
http://www.eturbonews.com/8860/caribbean-cannot-base-tourism-us-embargo-against-cuba 6.28.13]
US President Barack Obama has fulfilled a promise made to Cuban-Americans during last year's presidential campaign to ease travel
restrictions allowing them to visit Cuba as they wish, and to send money back home to their dependents.¶ This decision has caused
a ripple of concern among tourism authorities in some Caribbean countries, and
contradictory statements have been issued about the likely effect on their tourism industries.¶ The
more than
reality is that Caribbean countries have little to fear from President Obama's policy. Easing travel for Cuban-Americans to travel to
Cuba will have little or no effect on other Caribbean destinations. Very few Cuban-Americans travel on holiday to Caribbean
countries.¶ The
real impact on Caribbean tourism will come when the US and Cuba normalize relations and
the 49-year-old US embargo on Cuba comes to an end.¶ But the worry that Obama's decision has created in some
Caribbean countries is a good thing. None of them should predicate the development of their tourist industry on a continuing trade
the embargo will be lifted and Cuba will be a strong and direct
competitor with other Caribbean countries for US tourists and US investment in the tourist industry.
blockade of Cuba by the US. Sooner or later
Neighboring Caribbean countries must therefore prepare themselves for this competition and be ready to meet it.¶ Hopefully, the
concern generated by the easing of travel restrictions to Cuba for Cuban-Americans will catapult other Caribbean countries into
serious planning for the lifting of the US embargo.
Ext.- Env Impact
Tourism in the Caribbean negatively affects the environment, and the social
sector—studies prove income from tourism doesn’t outweigh the negative
effects
Kennedy 11 [Rita, is a writer and researcher and holds a Ph.D. in history and an honors degree
in geography from the University of Ulster. http://traveltips.usatoday.com/effects-tourismcaribbean-63368.html 6.28.13]
Tourism is vital to the entire Caribbean region, contributing an estimated 14.2 percent of the region's Gross
Domestic Product in 2011, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council. A survey undertaken by the Oxford Economic
organization in 2010 found that tourism
played a larger role in the Caribbean economy than it did in
any of the world's other equivalent areas. Yet the majority of this income -- perhaps as high as 80 cents in every
dollar -- "leaks out" of the Caribbean.¶ The tourism industry is a major employer throughout the region,
directly supporting an estimated 687,000 jobs and another 2,167,000 indirectly in 2011. However, many of these jobs
are seasonal and very low-paid, while the money generated by internationally funded projects fails
to reach locals. In fact, only 15 percent of the Chinese-funded Baha Mar construction project in the Bahamas found its way to
local laborers. On many islands, a racial divide appears to exist, on the one hand, between the owners of
tourist facilities, and, on the other hand, the workers at the tourist establishments, according to former Caribbean
ambassador Sir Ronald Sanders.¶ Local Development¶ Tourism could have a tremendous beneficial impact on
local economies, but many hotels source their food and cleaning products from abroad rather than
purchasing them from local producers. An Oxfam study found that hotels in St. Lucia imported more than 70 percent of their
produce every year. Local farmers cannot compete internationally and have suffered from a decline in the banana
trade, but Oxfam and other organizations are encouraging hotels to source food from local farmers, and by doing so keeping the
tourist income within the community and supporting farmer's efforts to diversify their crops. For some hotels and restaurants,
shopping locally adds a more authentic flavor to the products that they offer tourism and is a selling point in itself. For example, the
Ocean Terrace Inn (oceanterraceinn.com) in St. Kitts prides itself on serving food made using locally sourced ingredients.¶ Water
Resources¶ Tourism
makes huge demands on the Caribbean's water resources that is used for drinking,
cooking, washing, swimming pools and air conditioning, reducing the volume of water available to local
people. One study found that the average guest in Jamaica uses between 645 and 2,086 liters per night, compared with between
95 and 729 liters per guest per night in the United Kingdom. Several hotels have implemented programs to reduce their water use
and make it more efficient. Installing gravity-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads can reduce the amount of water used by
guests.¶ Environment¶ Tourism
can be harmful to the environment in a variety of ways. Cruise ships sailing
through the Caribbean dump waste into the sea; one 2002 study found that a ship carrying 2,000 passengers and
1,000 crew generated the same amount of waste as a small city. This waste, including oil residues, harms marine
ecosystems, including coral reefs. Groups such as the Caribbean Tourism Organization are promoting more sustainable
tourism projects that attempt to reduce the impact of tourism on the local environment, while the United Nations' Caribbean
Environment Program supports this effort with the Cartagena Convention. The Convention aims to protect the Caribbean's delicate
marine environment by establishing a series of protocols on combating oil spills, creating protected areas and dealing with pollution
from the land.
N/U – Caribbean Travel Low Now
The Caribbean tourism industry is low now, and will continue to fall
Jessop, 2/1 [David Jessop, Director of the Caribbean Council, “The long-term future of Caribbean tourism”, 2/1/13,
http://www.caribbean-council.org/sites/default/files/colfeb1%20(The%20future%20of%20Caribbean%20tourism%201).doc,
6/30/13]
A week or so ago, the Board of the Caribbean Hotels and Tourism Association (CHTA) passed unanimously a resolution calling on
Caribbean Heads of Government to convene a summit on tourism. What the private sector body wants is for urgent high level
consideration to be given to the many challenges now facing the industry and the threats these pose to region’s tourism-dependent
economy. ¶ Since then their request has been dismissed by some commentators as posturing. ¶ Why this should be is in part a
reflection of a sense across the region that the industry, and hoteliers in particular, are too well off, that tourism largely involves
foreigners, and that those who run it have been crying wolf for too long, without offering solutions that the region’s political
leadership can relate to. ¶ The matter is not helped by there being an uncertain hiatus between the retirement of CHTA’s Director
General, and the appointment of a successor; with the consequence that there is, as yet, no indication of who is to follow through,
to ensure that such a high level exchange might occur. ¶ Despite this, there is real merit in the concerns expressed by CHTA and a
clear need for a policy dialogue on key issues between all key stakeholders in and beyond the region on the future of what has
become a highly complex and vital industry. ¶ It may of course not be possible to bring all Heads together, but there would be real
value if one, or better still a small group of Prime Ministers who understand the political, economic and social dimensions of
tourism, were to provide the political leadership necessary to create such an encounter. This would have particular value if such a
group were able to report to their colleagues on the political steps required to enable Caribbean tourism to remain fresh, viable and
that
although the number of visitor arrivals into the region is again increasing, the value of the
tourism economy is moving in the other direction: since 2007, for example, annual visitor
spend has fallen by US$5 billion. Governments ignore this at their peril. If income is falling and profitability has yet to
able to provide sustainable long term support for the Caribbean economy.¶ The reality of Caribbean tourism today is
reach pre-2007 levels, it suggests that the Caribbean is becoming less competitive in relation to other destinations, and that
current levels of tourism employment and tax revenue may not be sustainable. ¶ There is no
shortage of statistics or professional advice to suggest this, but a dearth of industry voices able to articulate
this clearly or politically and promote a serious debate not about where the industry now is, but where it might be in twenty years
time.¶ What is even odder is that beyond this there is little if any interest by governments or regional institutions in the econometric
modelling of the Caribbean industry to enable the development of models into which assumptions that for instance demonstrate
whether the reduction or increase in taxes bring greater or lesser returns. As a consequence, taxes go up, airlines are incentivised
and tax holidays are granted without there being any clear understanding of whether the short, medium or long term impact is likely
For an industry worth more than US$25 billion per annum and which
employs at least thirteen per cent of the region’s workforce, this is truly disturbing. ¶
to be positive or negative.
***2AC AT: Case Offense***
AT: Environment DA
Not unique- Cuban government already working to improve environment
Rodriguez 6/12 – meteorologist for the Weather Channel, PhD. (Andrea Rodriguez, The Weather Channel, “Cuba Girds for
Climate Change by Reclaiming Coasts,” 6/12/13, http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/cuba-girds-climate-changereclaiming-coasts-20130612, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
CAYO COCO, Cuba — After Cuban scientists studied the effects of climate change on this island's 3,500 miles of coastline, their
discoveries were so alarming that officials didn't share the results with the public to avoid causing panic.¶ The
scientists
projected that rising sea levels would seriously damage 122 Cuban towns or even wipe them off the
map.¶ Beaches would be submerged, they found, while freshwater sources would be tainted and
croplands rendered infertile. In all, seawater would penetrate up to 1.2 miles inland in low-lying areas, as oceans rose
nearly three feet by 2100.¶ Climate change may be a matter of political debate on Capitol Hill, but for low-lying Cuba, those
frightening calculations have spurred systemic action.¶ Cuba's
government has changed course on decades of
haphazard coastal development, which threatens sand dunes and mangrove swamps that
provide the best natural protection against rising seas.¶ In recent months, inspectors and demolition
crews have begun fanning out across the island with plans to raze thousands of houses, restaurants, hotels
and improvised docks in a race to restore much of the coast to something approaching its natural state.¶ "The
government ... realized that for an island like Cuba, long and thin, protecting the coasts is a
matter of national security," said Jorge Alvarez, director of Cuba's government-run Center for Environmental Control and
Inspection.¶ At the same time, Cuba has had to take into account the needs sof families living in endangered homes and a $2.5
billion-a-year tourism industry that is its No. 1 source of foreign income.¶ It's a predicament challenging the entire Caribbean, where
resorts and private homes often have popped up in many places without any forethought. Enforcement of planning and
environmental laws is also often spotty.¶ With its coastal towns and cities, the Caribbean is one of the regions most at risk from a
changing climate. Hundreds of villages are threatened by rising seas, and more frequent and stronger hurricanes have devastated
agriculture in Haiti and elsewhere.¶ In Cuba, the report predicted sea levels would rise nearly three feet by century's end.¶ "Different
countries are vulnerable depending on a number of factors, the coastline and what coastal development looks like," said Dan
Whittle, Cuba program director for the New York-based nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.¶ He said the Cuban study's numbers
seem consistent with other scientists' forecasts for the region. The Associated Press was given exclusive access to the report, but not
permitted to keep a copy.¶ Cuba's preparations were on clear display on a recent morning tour of Guanabo, a popular getaway for
Havana residents known for its soft sand and gentle waves 15 miles (25 kilometers) east of the capital.¶ Where a military barracks
had been demolished, a reintroduced sand-stabilizing creeper vine known as beach morning glory is reasserting itself on the dunes,
one lavender blossom at a time.¶ The demolition nearby of a former swimming school was halted due to the lack of planning, with
the building's rubble left as it lay. Now inspectors have to figure out how to fix the mess without doing further environmental
damage.¶ Alvarez said the government has learned from such early mistakes and is proceeding more cautiously. Officials also are
also considering engineering solutions, and even determining whether it would be better to simply leave some buildings alone.¶ For
three decades Guanabo resident Felix Rodriguez has lived the dream of any traveler to the Caribbean: waking up with waves softly
lapping at the sand just steps away, a salty breeze blowing through the window and seagulls cawing as they glide through the crisp
blue sky. Now that paradise may be no more.¶ "The sea has been creeping ever closer," said Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retiree,
pointing to the water line steps from his apartment building. "Thirty years ago it was 30 meters (33 yards) farther out."¶ "We'd all
like to live next to the sea, but it's dangerous ... very dangerous," Rodriguez said. "When a hurricane comes, everyone here will just
disappear."¶ Cuban officials agree, and have notified him and 11 other families in the building that they will be relocated, though no
date has been set. Rodriguez and several other residents said they didn't mind, given the danger.¶ Since 2000, Cuba has had a
coastal protection law on the books that prohibits construction on top of sand and mandates a 130-foot-wide (40-meter) buffer
zone from dunes. Structures that predate the measure have been granted a stay of execution, but are not to be maintained and
ultimately will be torn down once they're uninhabitable.¶ Serious enforcement only began in earnest in recent months, as officials
came armed with the risk assessment.¶
Cuba has incredibly strong policies to keep the environment intact despite
other factors
Radio Cadena Gramonte, 6/26 – (“Cuba Affirms Commitment to the Environment”, Radio Cadena Gramonte,
http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english/index.php/show/articles/14774:cuba-affirms-commitment-to-the-environment)//AB
The head of the North, Central America and Mexico Area of the Cuban Communist Party International Relations Department,
Alberto Prieto, put forth the Cuban position at the forum. Prieto
said that Cuba is determined to develop a
more efficient and sustainable economy in the benefit of the people and in full harmony with the environment. The
official said the strategic guidelines of the Cuban Revolution include the design of an integral scientific, technological, innovative and
environmental policy in correspondence with the country’s social and economic development. This policy aims at
meeting the needs of the people and at encouraging their participation in the construction of the socialist society by
protecting the environment, the national heritage and culture, Prieto explained. The guidelines, adopted by
the latest congress of the Cuban Communist Party, also include the development of comprehensive research to protect and
rehabilitate the environment and adapt policies to the new economic and social scenarios. However, he said, such efforts are to be
taken amidst the stiffening of the US economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba, which has inflicted huge loss to the
Caribbean nation. Prieto stressed the ideas of Revolution leader Fidel Castro on climate change and the protection of the
environment. Experts from several Latin American countries, gathered in San Salvador, are addressing ways to harmonize social and
economic development with nature. The forum, which is being sponsored by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, is being
attended by representatives from Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela and Norway, along with several Salvadorian
organizations.(ACN)
Cuba has strong eco-tourism and keeps the environment safe with it
Whittle, et al, 03, (Daniel, “International Tourism and the Protection of Cuba's Coastal and Marine Environments, in Tulane
Environmental Law Journal,” p. 29-30)//AB
Cuba now has a dedicated entity for ecotourism, the National Commission for Ecotourism. The
Commission is comprised of officials from CITMA, MinTur, and the Ministry of Agriculture and publishes guidelines
and criteria for ecotourism, approves guides and tour leaders, and promotes tour packages
worldwide.189 Several state-owned companies now exclusively book and operate eco-tours. Working
with CITMA, MinTur, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Commission, the IPF in the Ministry of Planning has
identified 50 areas with nature tourism potential throughout coastal and interior Cuba.190 Many,
but not all of these, are in national parks or other protected areas and emphasize ecotourism over other natural tourism
offerings.191 And though income from ecotourism and other forms of nature tourism still represents a small percentage of Cuba’s
tourism-based revenues, their
popularity is on the rise. In 1999, revenues from ecotourism packages were $11 million, in
2000 they had almost doubled to $19 million, and by the end of 2001, ecotourism generated $25 million in income.192 Cuba’s
intention to develop and expand ecotourism is promising, but not without its skeptics. They fear that these
efforts could easily be overwhelmed by the attention given to conventional “large-scale beach and urban tourism” and observe that
“[m]any Cubans openly worry that the island is on a slippery slope back towards the Caribbean-style, foreign-owned tourism.”193
They wonder whether ecotourism is simply a “window dressing over the island’s mushrooming conventional tourism.”194 These are
legitimate concerns and present challenges to planners and environmental officials who are working to keep environmental
protection on an equal footing with economic development, in many places as well as Cuba.195 But in the case of Cuba, early
efforts to invest in real models of ecotourism are encouraging and offer hope that the country
will emerge as a leader, not a follower, in Caribbean ecotourism.
AT: Prostitution/Sexual Exploitation
Link turn - prostitution only occurs where poverty exists—increased tourism
improves the economy and decreases poverty
Miami Herald 3/17 (“How Cuba became the newest hotbed for tourists craving sex with minors,” 17 March 2013,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/16/3289971/how-cuba-became-the-newest-hotbed.html, accessed 25 June 2013)
Exploitation thrives were poverty exists, and in that respect Cuba is no different than other
destinations for sex tourists. ¶ Ivan Garcia, 43, a dissident Havana journalist who has written several articles on prostitution, said the
underage prostitutes are typically poor, hopeless and desperate. “For these people, ‘future’ is a bad word,” he
said.¶ Today, prostitution may well be the most profitable job in an island where the average monthly salary officially stands at less than $20 and a
bottle of cooking oil costs $3.¶ But Garcia argues that there’s more to prostitution on the island than poverty — that most Cubans dream of meeting a
foreigner who will take them away from the island’s grinding isolation. ¶ “They see that this girl married some Italian and now she’s dressing nice, fixing
up her mother’s house – it’s the illusion that you can get ahead if you prostitute yourself … the illusion of leaving the country, the illusion of a visa,” he
said.¶ Garcia said he knows two 12-year-old girls currently working the streets and has heard of 11-year-olds. Havana lawyer Laritza Diversent said she
knew of one nine-year-old girl who “was groped lasciviously” for cash.
AT: Security Threat
No link – not a security threat
Right to travel to Cuba Campaign, No date- promotes and defends the right of U.S. citizens to travel to
Cuba
[“Ten Reasons to Oppose the Cuba Travel Ban”, no date, http://www.righttotraveltocuba.org/defending/ten_reasons, accessed
7/1/13]
5. Cuba is not a national security threat
In regards to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1984 about restricting travel for national security reasons, the world has changed
tremendously since 1984. At that time, the U.S. accused Cuba of being an ally of the U.S.S.R. and supporting armed revolution in
Central America and Africa. Now the
Soviet Union no longer exists and there is no Cuban involvement in
armed struggle in Central American or Africa. It would be ludicrous to say that Cuba, a tiny island of
under 11 million people undergoing a severe economic crisis is in any way a threat to the United States. The only
foreign military base in Cuba is the U.S. base at Guantanamo! According to a Center for Defense Information study, Cuba spends in a
year on its military what the U.S. spends in 12 hours.¶ 6. The
U.S. is alone in its Cuba travel ban¶ Hundreds of
thousands of Canadians, Latin Americans and Europeans travel to Cuba every year in just as normal
a fashion as U.S. citizens vacation in the Bahamas. Cuba now has cordial diplomatic relations with almost
every country in the world. The U.S. embargo against Cuba has been overwhelmingly condemned by the United Nations
General Assembly year after year. The only other country to vote with the U.S. was Israel, which currently operates the largest citrus
plantation in the world in Cuba -- a clear example of the contradictions between Israel’s political and economic policy.¶ 7. The
U.S. does not ban travel to any other communist or so-called ‘enemy’ nations¶ We can travel freely to the
world's largest communist country -- China. Restrictions on travel to Vietnam have been lifted, and we can even go to the Middle
East. Perhaps most ironic is the fact that, in the past, we were not allowed to travel to Cuba because, as a Soviet ally, it was
considered a national security threat. Yet even
at the height of the Cold War, we were always allowed to
travel to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe!
AT: Hurts Culture
Tourism and culture are mutually beneficial
Arzeni, 09 - Director, OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development (Sergio,
Organization For Economic Cooperation, “The Impact of Culture on Tourism,” 2009,
http://www.em.gov.lv/images/modules/items/OECD_Tourism_Culture.pdf, accessed 6/25/13,
IS)
Culture and tourism have a mutually beneficial relationship which can strengthen the
attractiveness and competitiveness of regions and countries.¶ Culture is increasingly an
important element of the tourism product, which¶ also creates distinctiveness in a crowded
global marketplace. At the same¶ time, tourism provides an important means of enhancing
culture and creating income which can support and strengthen cultural heritage, cultural¶
production and creativity. Creating a strong relationship between tourism¶ and culture can
therefore help destinations to become more attractive and competitive as locations to live,
visit, work and invest in.
***2AC AT: CPs***
AT: Embargo CP
No Solv – Gradual Lifting Key
Incremental lifting of the embargo vital to less corruption
Kagan 08 – American historian, author and foreign policy commentator at the Brookings
Institution (Robert, “A Card to Play for Cuba's Freedom,” The Washington Post, 20 February 2008, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-0220/opinions/36789855_1_opposition-parties-international-election-monitors-cuban-government, Accessed 29 June 2013
The lifting of the embargo could be undertaken in stages linked to the fulfillment by the
Cuban government of key conditions necessary for holding elections. These would
include allowing genuine independent opposition parties to function, freeing the press
and other media and opening them up to the opposition, allowing international
nongovernmental organizations to provide elections training and technical assistance to
the Cuban people -- in short, taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election
campaign in which opposition parties have an equal chance to participate and
compete.¶ With international monitors in place months in advance of any vote, the
actions of the Cuban government could be watched and evaluated for compliance by
members of the U.S. Congress and respected international figures. The Bush
administration could determine at each stage whether conditions had been met that
would allow the gradual lifting of specific aspects of the embargo.
Gradual lifting solves best – provides incentives for additional Cuban progress
Ledger 11 – Lakeland newspaper (“Tourism vs. Embargo: Time to Engage Cuba,” 24 August 2011,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730
A better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic embargo and
measured moves toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relationships. If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws
moves forward, that development could be — and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and
establishing political ties. Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in order to
promote additional progress.
Gradual lifting key to a peaceful transition
Arzeno 03 – Master of Business Administration, University of Miami (Mario A., “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time
for Change?” Master of Military Art and Science Strategy, page 49, 2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, Accessed 30 June 2013
U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by
gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic
Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition:
The
Immediate lifting of embargo could destroy architecture – gradual lifting more
stable
Louv 09 – American nonfiction author and journalist (Richard, “Cuba and the Invasion of the Big-Box Stores,” Citiwire, 08 January
2009, http://citiwire.net/columns/cuba-and-the-invasion-of-the-big-box-stores/, Accessed 30 June 2013
Lifting the embargo, if that happens soon, could bring needed capital for the repair and preservation of the best of Havana’s
architecture. Or it could destroy it. Coyula’s suggested to us the embargo be lifted gradually. Surprisingly, his
opinion was shared by many Cubans we met, although they had suffered under communism and the embargo.
Gradual repeal of embargo key – Castro inflicted too much harm for an
immediate repeal
Hamilton 08 – Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University (Lee, “1st Step Toward Change for Cuba: End Embargo,” The Center on Congress, 10 March
2008, http://www.centeroncongress.org/1st-step-toward-change-cuba-end-embargo, Accessed 29 June 2013
Cuba
is a closed and repressed society, one that Fidel Castro increasingly victimized throughout his
dictatorial rule starting in 1959. The hesitancy with which ordinary Cubans have discussed their country's future in the last few weeks illustrates the
constant fear Castro's police state has instilled.¶ As we have seen in other countries subjected to despotic rule, the wounds
of tyranny are deep, and we cannot treat them brazenly. Also, Raúl Castro and his elite chums will
not go to bed tonight communist revolutionaries and wake up Jeffersonian democrats
tomorrow morning. Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese may be more likely economic role models. Change will be gradual .
But ending the embargo is hardly a solution in and of itself. Though its repeal would allow Cubans and Americans to trade, invest and travel, we must recognize that
Turn – Leverage and Transition
Lifting the embargo now hurts leverage and slows transition
Theissen 9 - a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, is a visiting fellow at the Hoover
Institution. He served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009 [Mark Theissen, Washington Post,
4/6/9, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501726.html]
The dumbest
thing we could do today would be to enact legislation unilaterally lifting the
embargo. Set aside questions about the embargo's efficacy. Like it or not, it is our only leverage, aside from our military,
to affect the transition in Cuba. Why would we fritter away that leverage just as time prepares to do what the embargo
could not -- bring about the end of the Castro regime? Fidel was never going to negotiate a loosening of repression in Cuba in
exchange for a lifting of the travel ban and other trade restrictions. But those who succeed him will, and the Castro brothers will
soon be gone. The question is: When that happens, what power will the United States have to encourage a democratic transition on
the island? Instead
of strengthening Raúl by lifting the embargo now, we should keep our powder
dry and use it to strengthen democracy and influence his successor. The embargo has been in place for 47 years -- at
this point, it would be foolish not to wait a little longer.
And American leverage is critical to avoid an expansion of Russian influence in
Cuba
Logan 8 – investigative journalist and analyst on security, politics, and energy in Latin America,
studied at Hampden-Sydney College, Monterey Institute of International Studies (Samuel Logan,
ISN ETS Zurich, International Relations and Security Network, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, 8/20/8 “Cuba's emerging leverage,” http://www.isn.ethz.ch/DigitalLibrary/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=90231, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
When Russian daily Izvestia reported on 21 July that Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers
had landed in Cuba, it set off a sprint in Washington as analysts and military leaders struggled to understand
the situation.¶ At first, it appeared that Moscow had made a very serious gesture. Russia's perceived
geopolitical maneuver in Cuba, many thought, was in response to the US' plans for an anti-missile shield
defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.¶ By 24 July, after three days of media hype and speculation over Russia's true
intentions, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Ilshat Baichurin, dismissed any intention for a strategic deployment in Cuba.¶ Two
events quickly followed up this announcement. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin arrived in Cuba on 30 July for extended
talks with Raul and Fidel Castro. A former KGB operative and known confidant of now-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Sechin
was an active operative during the Cold War and enjoyed a deep relationship with the Castros.¶ Putin then followed up Sechin's visit
with a 5 August announcement that Russia ought to "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries."¶ Observers agree a military
presence in Cuba is not in Moscow's best interests; rather, closer economic ties would behoove both nations.
Sechin's recent
visit underlines the latter observation and coaxes Washington into a more open posture
toward Cuba, an island nation the next US presidential administration would likely prefer not to
lose again to the Russians.¶ The country is seemingly in a position to leverage its newfound attraction in two powerful
nations. If the Castros can capitalize on Cuba's emerging position with both countries, it might find a way to pull the right
geopolitical levers to win badly needed foreign direct investment (FDI).¶ "Cuba has more to gain and more to lose," Dan Erikson,
senior associate for US policy and director of Caribbean programs with the Inter-American Dialogue told ISN Security Watch,
commenting on if a closer relationship with the US than with Russia would be advantageous to Cuba.¶ "On the economic level, if
travel and trade with the US were normalized, it would boost the Cuban economy," Erikson pointed out. "But then on the other
hand, the
Cuban government's number one preoccupation has been to maintain control over
the island, and that is much easier within the context of the US embargo," he said, adding, "Cuba
prefers to deal with countries that shares its ideology or at least respects it."¶ Moscow's interests¶
"The ideological rationale for close relations with Cuba ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, of course, and there has been
little interest in Moscow in reviving the relationship until now," Derek Averre, a research fellow with the European Institute's Center
for Russian and East European Studies, told ISN Security Watch.¶ "However, Moscow
is keen to support the idea of a
sovereign Cuba which does not fall wholly under a US sphere of interest," he added.¶ The rumors
of Moscow's interests in using Cuba as a military forward operations location (FOL), some analysts
argue, were most likely generated
to signal Washington over Russia's displeasure for ongoing
maneuvering in what used to be the latter's close sphere of influence, not to completely disrupt its own
relationship with the US or Cuba.¶ Moscow intends to close the gap with Havana that occurred when it ceased
financial aid to the island and further widened in 2001 when Russia closed a listening post there.¶ The electronic monitoring and
surveillance facility near Havana at Torrens was closed in October 2001, precipitating the removal of an annual US$200 million
payment Russia gave Cuba for use of the 28-square-mile area.¶ It was one of Russia's largest signal intelligence listening posts in the
Western Hemisphere, but one Moscow could no longer afford. The unilateral and sudden closure of this base incensed Cuban
leaders. They were neither consulted, nor were there any diplomatic overtures made to include Cuba in the decision process leading
up to the closure of the base.¶ Since then, relations between Moscow and Havana have been chilly at best.¶ With the recent
installment of Cuba's new leader, Raul Castro, Moscow has decided to repair relations with the high-level and overt visit recently
made by Sechin: a man feared in Washington and welcomed in Havana.¶ His visit to
Cuba began the process of
business deals in tourism, pharmaceuticals, civilian aviation and oil, including most importantly the
discussion of a refinery operated by Russian oil firm LUKoil.¶ If conversations over strategic interests were discussed in
private, Cuba has publicly made its position well known. It is happy to receive FDI from Russia but will not engage in any militarymilitary relations.¶ Military realities¶ Both Cuba and Russia know that any
military-military relations between the
two countries will provoke an immediate and negative response from Washington.¶ The US has
geopolitical pulleys in place to pressure Russia, vis-à-vis relationships in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in Russia's neighborhood, and
can pressure Cuba with a direct withdrawal from what has heretofore been the slow opening of a diplomatic aperture between the
two historical enemies.¶ Any
FOL for Russia in Cuba would mean an immediate departure for the
latter from Washington's good graces and the declaration of the restart of a geopolitical battle
between Moscow and Washington, thereby erasing any gains made by Putin during his presidency.¶ "Cuba has no
strategic value to a post-Soviet Russia which is a regional great power but no longer a global superpower and, furthermore, it runs
counter to Moscow's attempt to play a constructive role in international relations," Averre said, adding, "A revived military
relationship is highly unlikely."¶ Russian military assets in Cuba would be limited to the projection of power, signaling Cuba's de facto
decision to fall into step with its old ally.¶ Due to the proximity of the US naval base in Key West, Florida as well as other naval and
US Coast Guard assets in the region, any hardware Moscow places on Cuban soil would most likely stay grounded or in port or face a
direct confrontation with a far superior fighting force supported by various nearby ports. Russia would invite conflict half
a world away from home – not an ideal situation for any military.¶ The reality of an aggressive Russian military presence in Cuba is
one that is negative for both countries. It is simply one neither country sees as beneficial to its long term geopolitical goals in the
region.¶ Cuba in the middle¶ When US Congress approved some US$42 million in aid destined to Cuba on 22 July, it was a concrete
signal. Relations between the two countries are likely to improve over time despite the staunchly anti-Castro contingent that retains
a powerful voting block in southern Florida.¶ Raul Castro is well aware of this future. And while he is willing to play hard ball with
Washington, he knows the potential FDI upshot from the US could be beneficial to his people, Cuba's economy, and ultimately his
regime.¶ Raul is also aware that Russia is keen to improve relations. His three-day visit with Sachin erased any doubt that Moscow is
eager to invest in Cuba's energy and medical resources. Havana has long been interested in becoming a refining hub in the region,
and is eager to complete the LUKoil deal to have the Russian energy firm refine Venezuelan heavy crude for domestic use and,
perhaps, export to the US.¶ Cuba is in the middle with each hand on two heavy geopolitical levers. By applying the right amount of
pressure, the country can certainly benefit from both relationships. Too much pressure on either side, and Cuba risks losing one or
both connections. In the end, however, the
and some dignity no matter what the cost.
island nation will stick to its historical roots – maintain sovereignty
And Russian nuclearization is happening right now. Russia is angry because it
feels like the US is blocking it with Eastern European states. CP pushes Russia
over the brink of war.
Lulko 12 – Pravda.Ru, studied at Universidade Lomonossov, Faculdade de Geografia, lives in
Moscow (Lyuba Lulko, Pravda RU, “Russia to revive army bases in three oceans,” 1/8/12,
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/, accessed
7/1/13, IS)
The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the
former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. However, a solid contractual basis
should be developed for these plans.¶ The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral
Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out,"
Chirkov was quoted by the media. The issue was specifically discussed at the meeting with the leaders of all countries. President of
Vietnam Truong Tan Sang has recently held talks with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow and President Putin in Sochi.
Cuban leader Raul Castro met with Putin in Moscow earlier this month. A little earlier the President of the Republic of Seychelles,
James Michel made an unequivocal statement.¶ "We will give Russia the benefits in Cam Ranh, including the development of
military cooperation," the President of Vietnam told the media. Cuba that has an American military base in Guantanamo Bay and is
protesting against the deployment of new U.S. bases in Colombia, of course, wants to acquire an ally in Russia to be able to contain
the United States. Seychelles in the Indian Ocean has always been in the zone of Soviet influence. In 1981, the Soviet Navy helped
the government to prevent the military coup and before the collapse of the USSR the Soviets had a constant presence in the area. In
June of 2012, at the opening of an Orthodox church in the capital city of Victoria, James Michel spoke of Russia's role in combating
piracy and supported the Russian idea to build a pier in the port of Victoria, designed for the reception of the Navy warships of
Russian Federation.¶ Following the statement by Vice-Admiral, Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry made it clear that
they were talking about rest and replenishment of the crews after the campaign in the area and not military bases. It is clear,
however, that Russian warships could do both without special arrangements, given the good attitudes of the leaders of these
countries toward Russia. It can be assumed that the Russian Admiral unwittingly gave away far-reaching plans of the Russian
leadership. That would be great, because from the time of Peter the Great, Russia had a strong fleet and army. In addition, it is
worth mentioning Putin's statement at the G20 meeting in June. After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin made a
sudden harsh statement to the press. ¶ ¶ "In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander,
deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the
then U.S. president, has
assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the
Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on
cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in
Eastern Europe.¶ The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I
shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a
man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that
in recent years, the
U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the
countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only
response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad,
particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called
"jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only
resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic
nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin
said.¶ It is obvious that Russia will not stop simply at "resting" their sailors in the area. Now back to the statement of Chirkov.
Americans have not officially resented it. For example, the Pentagon spokesman George Little said that Russia had the right to enter
into military agreements and relationships with other countries, as does the United States, according to France Press Agency. The
reason is simple: American analysts believe that Russia now cannot afford to create its own military bases.¶ The Americans talk
about Russia's lack of influence, money and the actual fleet. Western media quoted an "independent expert on the defense" in
Moscow Paul Fengelgauer. He said that Russia does not have the necessary naval resources to provide constant presence outside its
territorial waters, as it has only 30 major warships that serve five fleets. Therefore, the possibility of placing an additional station
does not mean the expansion of sea power in Russia. This is largely an objective assessment. But
since the crisis in the
West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not that great - about a
quarter of the Soviet reserve. Another thing is that we should talk about the modernization of the fleet. There is much to
maintain. On Thursday, Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with
another 10-15 warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.¶ As for the influence, judging by the
words of the Russian President, Russia is also actively growing in this regard, although work in this direction has only begun. As we
can see, Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are involved. This
is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the
growing economic presence of Russia in the regions. For example, "Gazprom" is actively working on offshore
Vietnam. In the Caribbean, it also participates in the construction of Meso-American pipeline and field development in Venezuela.
An ammunition plant is under construction in Cuba.¶ However, one should start with a solid contractual basis. Take, for example,
agreements on mutual defense that the U.S. has with the Philippines, Japan, Colombia, and Mexico. In the presence of such
agreements military bases cannot be challenged as a military expansion. Russia has room to grow - of the 16 operating in the Soviet
era military bases today there is only one left - Tartus in Syria, or two, if we consider the base in Sevastopol.
US-Russian relations are critical for global security, preventing proliferation,
sustaining US leadership and averting nuclear war.
Allison and Blackwell 11 Graham [Director, Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard
Kennedy School,] and Robert [International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs] "10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters" Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs 10/30/11
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21469/10_reasons_why_russia_still_matters.ht
ml, accessed 6/29/12)
That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national interests.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s
decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for
Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that
Russia is a dangerous, difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights
and legal failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is
key to supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities require U.S. policymakers to advance our nation’s
interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the
United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every president since John F. Kennedy has recognized, Russia’s
cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war. Second, Russia is our most consequential
partner in preventing nuclear terrorism. Through a combination of more than $11 billion in U.S.
aid, provided through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and impressive Russian professionalism, two
decades after the collapse of the “evil empire,” not
one nuclear weapon has been found loose. Third,
Russia plays an essential role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
missile-delivery systems. As Washington seeks to stop Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to
sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and the
possibility of success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations
remains essential to the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups.
Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan . As U.S.
relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily
deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second largest gas producer. Over
the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets than any other nation. Most major energy
transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As citizens of a country that imports two of every three
of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel Russia’s impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an
important player in today’s international system. It is no accident that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as a member of the G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals
would be significant in the balance of power to shape an environment in which China can emerge as a global power without
overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in
the West and the United States across the Arctic. This territory provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose
stability is vital to the U.S. economy. Ninth, Russia’s brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for
science than all of Asia, places first in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S.
astronauts can now travel to and from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of
the most advanced digital company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei Brin. Tenth, Russia’s potential as a spoiler is
Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international
objectives could do — from stopping the supply flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air
defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council resolutions.
difficult to exaggerate.
And a rapid transition away from the communist economy is key to sustaining
reform. Slow reform keeps the Castro regime in power, ensuring maintained
political oppression.
Dominguez 9 – Chairman, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies; Senior
Adviser; Faculty Associate. Antonio Madero Professor for the Study of Mexico, Department of
Government; Vice Provost for International Affairs, Harvard University. (Jorge I Dominguez,
Harvard Magazine, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, “Hello from Havana: Nuanced
but unmistakable stirrings of change in Cuba,” August 2009,
http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/hello-havana, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
The nuances in Cuban public life since Raúl became president in his own right in February 2008 are evident as well in the enactment
of economic-policy reforms that were rolled out immediately following his formal installation.
Consider some examples. Previously, Cubans had not been able to stay at hotels or eat at restaurants designed for international
tourists, even if they had the funds to pay, unless they were on official business; now they were given access to all these facilities, so
long as they could pay. Cubans had also been prohibited from purchasing cell phones and subscribing to such services unless
officially authorized to do so. They were not allowed to purchase computers or DVD players. Now they were able to purchase such
products so long as they had the funds.¶ How
the Cuban government adopted these changes is important.
It could simply have announced a general deregulation of prohibitions regarding purchases of
consumer durables, for example. Instead, the government made each of these announcements
separately: one week you could stay at tourist hotels, the next week you could purchase a computer, the following week you
could obtain cell-phone services, and so forth. The government even announced that some products would be deregulated for
purchase in 2009 (air conditioners) or 2010 (toasters).¶ This
method of deregulating implied a desire to win
political support over time, not all at once. It communicated that the government retained the
right to micromanage the economy, deregulating product by product and service by service.
The government also signaled that it expected to remain in office for years to come, behaving
in the same way. Finally, most Cubans knew that they could have been purchasing these same consumer durables all along,
albeit only on the black market. Thus the policy of postponed deregulation implied an official tolerance of some current criminality
(knowing that some Cubans would buy toasters illegally in 2008, instead of waiting for 2010), because the government valued its
economic micromanagement more.¶ Whom the government sought to benefit was equally newsworthy. In its most revolutionary
phase, during the 1960s, the Cuban government adopted strongly egalitarian policies. Many Cubans came to believe in egalitarian
values and resented the widening of inequalities in the 1990s. Consider, then, Raúl’s reforms. Hotels and restaurants designed for
international tourist markets are expensive; so, too, are computers and DVD players. When these economic changes were
announced in 2008, the median monthly salary of Cubans amounted to about $17: that is, the average monthly salary was below the
World Bank’s worldwide standard for poverty, which is one dollar per day. To be sure, Cubans had free access to education and
healthcare and subsidized access to some other goods and services. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of Cubans could take
advantage of these new economic policies, because the purchases of such consumer durables and the access to such tourist services
had to be paid for in dollar-equivalent Cuban currency at dollar-equivalent international prices. (Cuba has two currencies; the peso
convertible is a close equivalent to the dollar, whereas the peso is worth about $0.04.) Raúl’s government was appealing to the
upper-middle-class professionals.
Turn - Infrastructure
Immediate end to the embargo collapses Cuban political and legal
infrastructure
Zimmerman, 10 [CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Barnard College, Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time
To Mend a Broken Policy, 2010, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf]
Elimination of the trade embargo immediately is not a feasible solution, as ¶ such a proposal would not
attract sufficient political support. Furthermore, the ¶ Cuban political and legal infrastructure does not have
the capability of adapting to ¶ such a radical change. Instead, I recommend incremental
measures that would 1) ¶ reduce the restrictions on the financing of Cuba’s purchase of U.S.
products by ¶ allowing payments to be made directly to U.S. banks; and 2) reduce and
eventually ¶ eliminate the restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba by initially permitting
¶ travel for educational and cultural purposes and eventually permitting direct ¶ commercial flights from the U.S. to Cuba. The
U.S. International Trade ¶ Commission’s analysis of the effects of government restrictions on export financing ¶ estimates that the
U.S. share of Cuban agricultural, fish and forest product imports ¶ would increase between one-half and two-thirds, and that all U.S.
agricultural ¶ sectors would benefit from the lifting of financing restrictions (U.S. International ¶ Trade Commission). The Commission
also studied the effect on U.S. agricultural ¶ sales to Cuba if travel restrictions were eliminated, and concluded that significant ¶
increases in U.S. exports of processed foods, poultry, beef and pork and fish would ¶ result (U.S. International Trade Commission)
This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of ¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba,
but I will now focus on the ¶ costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The
U.S. needs ¶ to adopt
a new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and ¶ waiting. The U.S. government should
instead take a more pragmatic approach when trying to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity
created ¶ by the change in leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms ¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time
eliminate the state’s information ¶ monopoly. The
opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade
restrictions ¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the ¶ risks.
Benefits for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions ¶ with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses
will benefit from ¶ substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food exports ¶ to Cuba, from reduced
transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions, ¶ and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2)
the U.S. ¶ government will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3) ¶ funds wasted on attempts to delegitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV ¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million annually, instead can be used for
¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S. ¶ Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing
complex financing restrictions and ¶ investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and ¶ redirected to a
more practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad; ¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s most
important allies ¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform ¶ measures (Sweig). Offsetting these
benefits are the costs of enforcement of ¶ increased trade activities and travel with Cuba as well as the reality that these ¶ measures
will not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid ¶ transition to a democratic government.
Rapid political and social transition key to toppling the Castro government
Suchlicki 3/4 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for
Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. (Jaime Suchlicki, The Atlantic,
“Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro,” 3/4/13,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-antiamerican-after-castro/273680/, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
It is one of the ironies of totalitarian regimes that the road to bureaucratic success is not through efficiency or hard work but
through loyalty. Perhaps Diaz Canel has learned this lesson in his short career. Without any popular support or base of power in the
military, his future may be as precarious as those of his comrades fired from their jobs and now living in oblivion.¶ ***In
the
meantime, Raul Castro will still rule with an iron fist. Some Cuba observers expect that Raul will open up the
economy and even provide some political changes. Not so soon. With Fidel alive, or even when he is dead, it
would be difficult for Raul to reject his brother's legacy of political and economic
centralization. His legitimacy is based on being Fidel's heir. Any major move to reject Fidel's "teachings"
would create uncertainty among Cuba's ruling elites - party and military. It could also increase
instability as some would advocate rapid change, while others cling to more orthodox policies. Cubans could see
this as an opportunity for mobilization, demanding faster reforms.¶ For Raul Castro, the uncertainties of uncorking the genie's bottle
of reform in Cuba are greater than keeping the lid on and moving cautiously. For the past 52 years, political considerations have
always dictated economic policies. He had been the longest serving Minister of Defense (47 years). He presided over the worst
period of political repression and economic centralization in Cuba and is responsible for numerous executions after he and his
brother assumed power, and some while in Mexico and the Sierra Maestra before reaching power.¶ During his speech to Parliament,
Raul Castro scoffed at any idea that the country would soon abandon socialism and embrace profound economic changes. "I was not
chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba," he emphasized. "I was elected to defend, maintain and continue to perfect
socialism and not to destroy it."¶ General Castro faces significant challenges in his second term. A non-productive and highly
dependent economy on Venezuela and other foreign sources, popular unhappiness, the need to maintain order and discipline
among the population and the need to increase productivity. Raul is critically dependent on the military. Lacking the charisma of his
brother, he still needs the support of key party leaders and technocrats within the government bureaucracy.¶ ***The critical
challenge for Raul Castro will be to balance the need to improve the economy and satisfy the needs of the population with
maintaining political control. Too
rapid economic reforms may lead to an unraveling of political
control, a fact feared by Raul, the military, and other allies keen on remaining in power. A partial
solution may be to provide more consumer goods to the population, including food, but without any structural economic changes. ¶
Similarly, any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's
main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would
require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to
renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain
relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies
are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in
return for generous aid.¶ Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba
normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in
Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They
are usually carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or
other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking
agreement between the United States and Cuba.¶ Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶
The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There has to be a willingness on
the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well
as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United States to change it policies.
And the Castro government is uniquely terrible for human rights. The
counterplan ensures that rights abuses continue.
Department of State 4/19 – US Department of State, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN
RIGHTS, AND LABOR, “2012 Human Rights Reports: Cuba,” 4/19/13,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012/wha/204441.htm, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
Cuba is an authoritarian state led by Raul Castro, who is president of the council of state and council of ministers, Communist Party
(CP) first secretary, and commander in chief of security forces. The constitution recognizes the CP as the only legal party and “the
superior leading force of society and of the state.” The October municipal elections were neither free nor fair. A CP candidacy
commission preapproved all candidates for National Assembly elections anticipated for 2013. Security forces reported to a national
leadership that included members of the military and conducted a range of oppressive actions and behaviors against civil rights
activists and ordinary citizens alike.¶ The
principal human rights abuses were: abridgement of the right of
citizens to change the government; government threats, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and
detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly; and a record number of
politically motivated and at times violent short-term detentions.¶ The following additional
human rights abuses continued: unlawful use of force, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary
arrests, selective prosecution, and denial of fair trial. Authorities interfered with privacy and engaged in
pervasive monitoring of private communications. The government did not respect freedom of speech and
the press; severely restricted Internet access and maintained a monopoly on media outlets; circumscribed academic freedoms;
limited freedom of movement; and maintained significant restrictions on the ability of religious groups to meet and worship. The
government refused to recognize independent human rights groups or permit them to function legally. In
addition, the government continued to prevent workers from forming independent unions and abrogated workers’ rights.¶ Most
human rights abuses were official acts committed at the direction of the government. Impunity
for the perpetrators remained widespread.
Human rights violations outweigh nuclear war
Mohan '93 [Professor at LSU (Brij, “Eclipse Of Freedom,” p. 3-4)]
thermonuclear fever because the latter does not directly impact the
day-to-day operations of the common people. The fear of crime, accidents, loss of job, and health care
on the one hand; and the scourges of racism, sexism, and agism on the other hand have created a
counterculture of denial and disbelief that has shattered the façade of civility. Civilization loses its
significance when its social institutions have become counterproductive. It is the aspect of the
The ordeal of existence transcends the
mega-crisis that we are concerned about. The “ordeal of existence”, as I see it, has three relevant facets: Crisis of
modernity, Contradictions of paradigms, Complexity of social phenomenon. Reinventing civility calls for an exposition of
these elements without a vituperative intent. Each of these aspects has normative and structural dimension involving a
host of theories. The politics, metaphors, and rhetoric, however, color the shape and substance of each analytical output.
Therefore, a value-neutral assessment cannot be a politically correct statement on the human condition.
A free society outweighs nuclear extinction
Shue '89 [(Henry, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University,
“Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, pp. 134-5)]
But is it realistic to suppose that American citizens would risk not just their own lives but their families and their nation in
using nuclear weapons to save Western Europe and other free societies from Soviet domination, especially if the United
States’ allies are not willing to risk nuclear destruction themselves? According to one 1984 poll, 74 percent of Americans
queried believe “the U.S. should not use nuclear weapons if the Russians invade Western Europe.” Nuclear Protectionists,
however, would reply that further public debate might convince more Americans that deterrence cannot be had on the
If the United States is determined to deter a Soviet attack on Europe, it must have a
moral nuclear strategy that it is willing to implement. Without effective population defenses, such a strategy
could require that the United States accept an unequal risk of nuclear destruction to ensure the
survival of free society. In the extreme, this could mean that the United States must be willing to
sacrifice itself for values higher than its own national survival. Thus, Nuclear Protectionism views both
moral cheap.
Just War morality and national “self-centered” as unworkable foundations for U.S. security policy.
Permutation
Perm Solves: Gradual removal of the embargo key – Embargo removal must be
coupled with lifting travel ban restriction.
Arenzo 03 – M.B.A., University of Miami (Mario A. Arenzo, “THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A
TIME FOR CHANGE?,” Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, published
2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, accessed 6/30/13, IS)
**CANF = Cuban American National Foundation.
Several actions, or decisive points, must occur for the CANF to compromise and¶ ultimately
create change in Cuba; beginning with the review of the Torricelli Bill and the¶ Helms-Burton Act, followed by the
opening of economic trade, and the lifting of¶ restrictions on the travel ban and the sale of food and
medicine. The CANF will not allow¶ any of this to happen without the unconditional removal
of Castro and anyone associated¶ with the Castro family. This is an unrealistic goal that the
embargo alone cannot¶ accomplish. The CANF, as the source of all power in this issue, should be part of the¶ solution
by seeking ways to promote change in the Cuba policy, instead of seeking ways¶ to prevent change in a failed policy.¶ The CANF’s
power and influence is becoming less relevant each day with the¶ shift in public opinion that is even transcending cultural lines to
Cuban Americans in¶ Miami who believe the embargo is a failed policy. Since 1993, the Florida International¶ University in Miami
has polled Cuban Americans on their position with regard to the¶ Cuba Policy. In 1993, forty two percent of Cuban Americans
believed better relations¶ 49¶ with Cuba were needed. The most recent poll in 2002 indicates that number has grown to¶ sixty-two
percent who believe better relations are needed. However, the CANF’s¶ influence is still significant enough to prevent better
relations and progress.¶ The
U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post
embargo¶ environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full¶ spectrum of
the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should ¶ be inconsequential to the transition:
And a laundry list of benefits to a gradual reduction of the trade embargo.
Zimmerman 10 - Barnard College (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade
Embargo: An Opportune
Time To Mend a Broken Policy,” Published 2010,
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, accessed
6/30/13, IS)
This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but
I will now focus on the¶ costs and benefits
of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S.
needs¶ to adopt a new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and¶ waiting.
The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach¶ 9¶ when trying to
encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created¶ by the change in leadership of both countries and
with the recent reforms¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the state’s information¶ monopoly. The
opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit
far outweigh the¶ risks. Benefits
for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions ¶
with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from¶ substantial revenue
increases derived from a more significant share of food exports¶ to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays
caused by travel restrictions,¶ and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S.¶ government
will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3)¶ funds wasted on
attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million
annually, instead can be used for¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S.¶
Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and¶
investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and¶ redirected to a more
practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad;¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s
most important allies¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform¶ measures (Sweig)..¶
Plan is a Prerequisite
Lifting the travel ban is the first step toward lifting the embargo
Theissen 9 - a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, is a visiting fellow at the Hoover
Institution. He served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009 [Mark Theissen, Washington Post,
4/6/9, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501726.html]
The White House announced this weekend that President Obama would soon lift restrictions on family
travel and remittances to Cuba. A bipartisan group of 20 senators has gone further,
introducing legislation to repeal the nearly half-century-old ban on travel to Cuba -- a first step
toward lifting the U.S. embargo on the communist island. Before proceeding, lawmakers ought to consider the
words of Ricardo Alarcón -- a top official in the Castro regime and longtime leader of Cuba's National Assembly of People's Power.¶
Plan leads to end of embargo
Palmer 9 [Doug Palmer, Reuters, 3/31/09, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/31/us-usa-cuba-travel-idUSN3142346320090331]
(Reuters) - A
bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill on Tuesday to allow U.S. citizens to
travel freely to Cuba and predicted Congress would approve it as a step toward ending the fivedecade-old U.S. embargo.¶ "I think there's sufficient votes in both the House (of Representatives) and
the Senate to finally get it passed," Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan said at a news conference.¶ Dorgan, whose
home state of North Dakota could benefit from increased agricultural sales to Cuba, introduced the bill along with fellow Democratic
Senator Christopher Dodd and Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Mike Enzi. Seventeen other senators also are sponsoring the
measure. A companion bill introduced in the House earlier this year has 121 co-sponsors.¶
Congressional opponents of any move to ease the embargo promised a tough fight to keep this measure from becoming law. ¶ "This
is the time to support pro-democracy activists in Cuba, not provide the Castro regime with a resource windfall," Senator Mel
Martinez, a Florida Republican who was the first Cuban-American elected to the Senate, said in a statement.¶ President Barack
Obama said during last year's presidential campaign he favored easing U.S. restrictions on family travel to Cuba and the sending of
cash to family members.¶ But he stopped short of supporting the lifting of the trade embargo, which a growing number of U.S.
lawmakers believe has failed to bring about democratic change in communist-led Cuba.¶ Vice President Joe Biden told reporters
"no" when asked in Chile on Saturday whether the United States would lift the embargo, as many in Latin American favor.¶ Obama is
expected to face pressure from regional leaders to improve U.S. relations with Cuba when he travels to Trinidad in mid-April for the
Summit of the Americas meeting.
Easing restrictions leads to the end of the embargo
Schlesinger 9 [ROBERT SCHLESINGER, Obama's Revamp of Cuba Travel Policy Is Overdue, But the Embargo Should Come
Next, US News and World, 4/14/09, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/14/obamas-revamp-of-cuba-travel-policyis-overdue-but-the-embargo-should-come-next]
As an American, I enjoy the right to travel virtually anywhere without interference from my government. It's one of the things that
set us apart from the authoritarian regimes to which we hold ourselves up as a beacon and an example. But there's one exception,
one country over which the U.S. government abrogates its citizens' freedom of travel. Is it North Korea, the outlaw, nuclear-saberrattling regime that starves its citizens? No, any of us can legally head west for a demilitarized zone vacation. Perhaps it's Iran,
America's biggest Middle Eastern adversary and another possible nuclear threat? Nope.¶ The
only country to which
Americans are barred from traveling is neither a rival nor a threat. It is Cuba, the last bastion
of domestic Cold War politics.¶ That may soon change. In anticipation of this week's summit with Latin American and
Caribbean leaders, President Obama rolled back restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the island or sending money to their
families there. Last week, members of a congressional delegation had constructive meetings with former Cuban President Fidel
Castro and his brother Raúl, the current president. And a bipartisan group of members of Congress, backed by a formidable coalition
of U.S. business interests, is pushing legislation that would lift the travel ban for all U.S. citizens. They are optimistic of passing it this
year.¶ Easing
travel restrictions would be a good first step, but only as prologue to the main event:
lifting the U.S. embargo against Cuba. There are several good reasons, substantive and political, to modernize our
Cuba policy (and not simply my own desire to enjoy a Cuba libre and a Cohiba cigar while strolling the beaches of Varadero).
Ending travel ban key to ending the embargo
Rep. Lee 10 [Rep. Barbara Lee, California’s 9 District, Huffington Post, 8/19/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/repth
barbara-lee/mr-president-lift-the-tra_b_687580.html]
It is far past time that we end the counterproductive and unnecessary travel ban.¶ If one examines the history
of American foreign affairs, it is hard to find a policy that has lasted for as long, yet so obviously failed, as our trade embargo of
Cuba. If someone had told President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 that the Cuban embargo would last 50 years, would Eisenhower
have considered a different approach?¶ We'll never know, but what we do know is that a half-century of the embargo hasn't
brought down Castro's government. And it certainly hasn't helped Americans in any way. At long last, the time has come for the
embargo to end.¶ The old cliché says that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different
result." Yet whenever the question of the embargo is raised, its defenders say we need to keep it in place so we can keep pressure to
promote democratic reforms, including greater freedom of speech, religion, and association. This is the same argument that has
been made for 50 years. The embargo didn't bring about democratic reform in 1960, or 1970, or 1980, and it won't do so in 2010.
We need to try a new approach.¶ That approach is engagement - individual, cultural, and economic. It won't be only Cubans who will
reap the benefits. The House
Agriculture Committee recently passed the Travel Restriction Reform
lifts all restrictions on travel to Cuba, and
allows American farmers to sell their crops to this waiting market just a few miles off our shores. It will be an important
first step, but we need to go even farther, to eliminate the trade embargo that has failed for so long.¶ The result will
and Export Enhancement Act, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. It
be hundreds of millions of dollars coming into the American economy, and the creation of thousands of American jobs. And when
Cubans start buying our goods and forming relationships with Americans, the path to their future - a democratic and prosperous one
- will become clearer than ever.¶ If
we can allow travel and trade with nations such as China and Vietnam, then surely
we can move forward with lifting the travel ban and ending the embargo with Cuba.
AT: Env Condition CP
Raul Castro will say no to the US. He will reject any American intervention
because Castro sees Cuban-US cooperation as a tradeoff of relations with other
allied nations.
Suchlicki 4/3 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American
Studies at the University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, Mexico: From Montezuma to NAFTA and
Breve Historia de Cuba. (Jaime Suchlicki, The Atlantic, “Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro,” 4/3/13,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/, accessed
6/28/13, IS)
Similarly, any
serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean
the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within
the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American
alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to renounce
the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in
exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in
Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are
not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in return for generous aid.¶ Raul
does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past,
public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious
negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually carried out through the normal
diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These
avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States
and Cuba.¶ Raul
remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶ The
issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There
has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of
human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United
States to change it policies.
AT: XO CP
Even if the CP claims to get rid of the Helms-Burton Act, it’s not true. Obama
doesn’t have the jurisdiction to void the Helms-Burton Act, means Obama can
only pass part of the plan. Proves that the permutation solves best.
Dion 12 – Worked for The Associated Press, the Kansas City Star and the Providence Journal as
a writer, book reviewer and columnist , Marc Dion, Creators Syndicate, “U.S. trade embargo
with Cuba needs to change,” 2012, http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/u-s-tradeembargo-with-cuba-needs-to-change.html, accessed 6/30/13, IS)
Fifty years ago today, rebel forces captured the city of Santa Clara in central Cuba, sending the island nation's dictator, Fulgencio
Batista, into a New Year's Eve panic. He fled for exile in the Dominican Republic. A week later, a bearded 32-year-old lawyer named
Fidel Castro marched triumphantly into Havana to claim his prize.¶ El Comandante is still there and still in charge, although earlier
this year, he surrendered day-to-day control of the nation to his brother, Raul. Fidel Castro has survived 10 U.S. presidents starting
with John F. Kennedy, who severed diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961, when it entered the Soviet Union's embrace.¶ The world
has changed drastically in 50 years, but the United States and Cuba remain fierce political adversaries. Their populations,
paradoxically, are intertwined, even as the U.S. economic embargo restricts the flow of people, money and products to and from the
tropical island of 11 million people.¶ The embargo is an anachronistic vestige of Cold War politics that no longer serves much
purpose. Castro's ill health, along with the beginning of President-elect Barack Obama's administration, offers a special opening to
relax significantly — if not outright reverse — its damaging effects.¶ Relaxing or removing the embargo should be part of gradual
diplomacy: As
the Cuban government begins to restore political, economic and civil liberties to its
people, the United States should loosen its economic sanctions.¶ Cuba is not the socialist paradise that
Fidel Castro promised. He created a police state that represses free speech, free elections and the ability to accumulate personal
wealth. It may be, as Castro boasts, that no Cuban lacks the basics of life. But most of them don't have much more than that.¶
Although a U.S. president can ease travel and cultural exchanges via executive order, it would
take congressional action to end sanctions imposed by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act.¶ That's
long been regarded as political suicide in Florida, a key electoral state. But a recent Florida International
University poll found that a majority of the Cubans in Miami-Dade County support normalizing relations with Cuba and lifting the
economic embargo.¶ About 35 percent of the Cubans in South Florida broke ranks with the Republican party to vote for Obama, a
Democrat. His support was especially strong among younger Cuban-American voters, many of whom don't share the animosities of
their fathers and mothers.¶ Lifting the embargo would be in the best interests of the United States in several ways:¶ — Economic.
Although Cuba is just a blip on the global economic radar, it is a mere 90 miles from Florida and offers new markets to U.S. farmers
and businesses.¶ — Strategic. Lifting the embargo would re-establish U.S. credibility throughout the Caribbean, Central and South
America. It would deflect Cuba's public flirtations with Russia, China and Venezuela.¶ — Brainpower. Cubans are poor but welleducated and literate at levels above other developing Latin American countries. It offers a trove of doctors and teachers, as well as
a population hungry for access to the democratizing effects of the Internet, cell phones and personal technology. ¶ — Humanitarian.
Two generations of families in both countries have been tormented and divided. Families should be reunited, and Americans should
be allowed to enjoy the ecological and cultural splendor of the island.¶ Cuba poses no direct military threat; the memories of the Bay
of Pigs attack in 1961 and the missile crisis of 1962 are just that: memories.¶ The blockade serves only the interests of Cuba's
leaders. They can — and do — blame the many failings of a 50-year communist regime on what they call El Bloqueo. In many
respects, the Castro revolution has survived not despite U.S. opposition, but because of it.¶ The best ambassadors for democracy in
Cuba are American tourists, American businesses and American cultural representatives. The Cuban people may have been isolated
from the world for 50 years, but they are smart and pragmatic. The United States should reach out to them, not only in their
interest, but also in our own.
***2AC AT: DAs***
AT: Cuba Relations DA
Relations thawing now – talks occurring. Plan is just a minor extension of that
Adams 6/19 [David Adams, Reuters, 6/19/13,
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_23495457/u-s-cuba-restart-migration-talks#ixzz2XF05JgqO]
U nited S tates and Cuba have agreed to resume regular migration talks in a possible sign
of thawing relations after more than three years of tensions over Cuba's jailing of a U.S. government contract worker.¶ The
announcement of the talks Wednesday came as Cuban and U.S. officials met in Washington for discussions exploring the
restoration of direct mail service between the two countries after a 50-year ban.¶ The new round of migration
MIAMI — The
talks on July 17 "do not represent a significant change in U.S. policy towards Cuba," a State Department official said on condition of
anonymity.¶ Migration between the two countries has long been a thorny issue. Diplomatic relations have been frozen since soon
after Cuba's 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro, and hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles fled their homeland for South Florida in
the decades that followed.¶ Migration talks were suspended in 2003 by President George W. Bush. The talks were briefly revived by
the Obama administration in 2009, but were suspended again in 2011, when American contractor Alan Gross was sentenced to 15
years in prison for installing Internet networks for Cuban Jews in a U.S. program Cuba considers subversive.¶ Gross' arrest in late
2009 and sentencing in March 2011 stalled a brief period of detente in U.S.-Cuba relations after President Barack¶ Obama took
office early in 2009 and quickly loosened restrictions on travel and remittances to the island for Cuban Americans with relatives in
Cuba.¶ Cuba relaxed its own restrictions on travel in January, increasing the number of Cubans able to travel legally to the United
States and allowing several prominent dissidents to travel abroad freely since then.¶ "In the past two months, a
very slow
thaw in U.S.-Cuban relations has been perceptible," said Geoff Thale, program director for the
Washington Office on Latin America.¶ "These are modest but sensible steps. What's significant is less the
steps themselves than the fact that there is movement in the relationship. It's a real break from
the status quo."¶ U.S. officials played down the significance of the migration talks, noting that it was consistent with a broader
policy of engagement with countries the U.S. does not have full diplomatic relations with.¶ One senior official said the talks are part
of a wider U.S. engagement with the region, citing recent trips to Latin America by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of
State John Kerry.¶ Kerry is a longtime advocate of greater engagement with Cuba, and his confirmation as Secretary of State early
this year encouraged to supporters of lifting the embargo.¶ Many obstacles remain, foremost among them a 51-year-old U.S. trade
embargo that by law can only be lifted if Cuba agrees to abandon its one-party communist system.¶ In a statement on Wednesday,
Cuba described the postal talks as fruitful but emphasized that a "stable, quality and safe postal service" could not resume while the
embargo was in place.¶ The most immediate stumbling blocks to any long-term warming of relations continue to be the fate of
Gross, as well as four Cuban spies jailed in the United States.¶ Cuba has hinted it might release Gross if the United States agrees to
free the four spies who are considered national heroes by Havana. Washington says releasing them is out of the question, noting
that one of the four was sentenced to life for conspiracy to commit murder.¶ Cuba recently agreed to allow an American doctor to
examine Gross, satisfying a longstanding demand by his family and the U.S. government. Gross, 64, has lost 100 pounds, in jail, and
relatives want him treated for a tumor.
Plan not unique to relations – relations are thawing now.
Haven, 6/22 – Writer for the Associated Press and Associated Press bureau chief in Havana,
Cuba. Previous Chief of Bureau/Spain and Portugal at The Associated Press, Chief of
Bureau/Pakistan and Afghanistan at The Associated Press, Supervisory Editor of AP. Cornell
University Graduate. (Paul, the Associates Press, “Cuba, U.S. take steps toward rapprochement,”
6/22/13,
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Cuba+take+steps+toward+rapprochement/8563980/story.
html, accessed 6/25/13 IS)
They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward
rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough
in relations could be just over the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times
before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides
of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service,
and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban
intelligence agent to return to the island.¶ This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government
subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has
apparently not yet happened. Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including
making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats on both sides
describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting
grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publicly accusing them of being CIA frontmen.
Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶
Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently travelled to Washington and met
twice with State Department officials - a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two
sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban
officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president.¶ "These
recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try
to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a
professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter
administration.
***POLITICS***
Pop- Public
Plan is popular with the public – Obama can use this for greater political
maneuvering
Boston Globe 2/09 (Boston Globe Editorial, “Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too” 2/09/13,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-intocentury/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html, 7/1/13,)
¶ RELATIONS BETWEEN the United States and Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full economic embargo in
1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change the status quo. Yet
while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The communist government of the ruling
Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba
instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled
to return home.¶ These changes, and the beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunity to acknowledge Cuba’s
gestures and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the
Castros, the
Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ The Cubangreater
contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of
Florida voters. Because of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as
Romney — has more maneuvering room politically.¶
American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting
Plan Popular-Democrats
Democrats want to allow all travel to Cuba – people-to-people diplomacy key
to relations
Farr 5/1 – U.S. Representative for California's 20th congressional district (Sam, “Members of Congress ask White House to expand Cuba travel policy,”
http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/component/content/article/37-2013-press-releases/965-members-of-congress-ask-white-house-to-expand-cuba-travel-policy, Accessed
27 June 2013
Farr (D-CA) today sent a letter signed by 59 Members of Congress to President
Obama, asking the Administration to expand its current policy for travel to Cuba. The letter encourages President
Obama to allow all categories of permissible travel to Cuba, including people-to-people travel, to be carried out under a general
license.¶ “There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” said
Congressman Farr. “By including all forms of permissible travel under a general license, more Americans can engage in the kind of peopleto-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and advance human rights.”¶ In 2009,
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Sam
Barack
President Obama announced Reaching Out to the Cuban People, a set of policy changes that fully restored the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba and send
them unlimited remittances. This has resulted in the reunification of thousands of families and has provided the capital for Cubans to take advantage of economic reforms in
In 2011, President Obama took another important step by reauthorizing purposeful travel for all Americans, fostering
meaningful people-to-people interaction between American and Cuban citizens. But these trips require a specific license granted to
specialized travel service providers. Unfortunately, the licensing process has reportedly been expensive, slow,
cumbersome, and arbitrary, causing delays and – in some cases cancellations- of trips that enable Americans to exercise
Cuba and start their own businesses.¶
their right to purposeful travel to Cuba.¶ Earlier this year, Cuba removed the restrictions on most Cubans’ foreign travel, including travel to the United States, a move that the
United States and many in the international community had been pushing for.¶ The letter calls upon the President to use his executive authority to included people-to-people
travel under a general license. ¶ “A pragmatic policy of citizen diplomacy can be a powerful catalyst for democratic development in Cuba,” said Farr. “
This change is the
next step in supporting a 21st century policy of engagement in US-Cuba relations.”
Democrats push for less travel restrictions– promote democracy and human
rights
Pecquet 4/30 - Foreign affairs reporter/blogger for The Hill (Julian, “House Dems: Time to simplify travel to Cuba,” The Hill,
30 April 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/297013-lawmakers-time-to-simplify-travel-to-cuba, Accessed 27 June 2013
Obama administration should make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba by ending pre-travel
approval, 59 House Democrats wrote Tuesday in a letter to the president.¶ This month marks the fourth anniversary of
The
Obama's decision to lift all restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island; two years later, Obama allowed all Americans to participate in so-called “people-to-people”
Lawmakers now want individuals and groups to be able to
travel under a general license: instead of having to get approval before their trip, visitors to Cuba would be able to
travel without hassle but may have to produce supporting documentation upon their return that their visit met the letter of the law.¶ “There are no better
visits, educational exchanges carried out by licensed tour operators.
ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), who spearheaded the letter, said in a statement. “By including all forms of permissible
more Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can
promote democratic change and advance human rights.Ӧ The letter says that Cuba's decision in January to rescind restrictions
travel under a general license,
on Cubans' travel to the United States gives the administration a “predicate for doing more.”¶ “Exercising your executive authority to allow all current categories of permissible
travel, including people-to-people, to be carried out under the general license is the next logical step,” the letter says. “This action would speed the processes you have already
helping Cubans create more jobs and
opportunities to further expand their independence.”
unleashed: increasing opportunities for engagement and reconciliation, while also
Plan Popular- Republicans
Republicans support the plan – they want to end Cuba’s travel ban
Blase 4/11 – the foundress of the largest Hispanic Republican group in the nation that began
in Arizona (Dee Dee Garcia, “GOP Lawmakers have no leg to stand on slamming JayZ and Beyonce after ending fund on enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba,”
Mexican-American Times, 11 April 2013, http://tucsoncitizen.com/hispanic-politico/2013/04/11/gop-lawmakers-have-no-leg-to-stand-on-slamming-jayz-and-beyonce-afterending-fund-on-enforcement-of-the-travel-ban-in-cuba/, Accessed 28 June 2013
Jay-Z and Beyoncé can go ahead and get…that…dirt off their shoulders.¶ After all, the GOP
lawmakers who are attacking Jay-Z have no leg to stand on when they (GOPers) are the ones who helped to vote an end funding on
the enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba.
Looks like
Plan Popular-Chamber of Commerce
COC supports plan – opens trade and spreads democracy
Bogardus 10 – staff writer at the Hill (Kevin, “Chamber Raises Stakes in Cuba Travel Ban,” The Hill, 29 June 2010, http://thehill.com/businessa-lobbying/106313-chamber-raises-stakes-in-cubas-embargo-battle, Accessed 28 June 2013
Business associations are raising the lobbying stakes on legislation that would remove the
American travel ban and boost U.S. farm sales to Cuba.¶ In an unusual move, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a letter to House
Agriculture Committee members warned it could score House floor votes on the bill that the panel is marking up Wednesday. Such
letters typically aren’t sent until a day before a floor vote. ¶ “It sends a signal how seriously we are taking the bill,” said Patrick
Kilbride, the Chamber’s director of the Americas office. “This just has been considered by the Chamber as fundamental to its
advocacy message of free enterprise.Ӧ The Chamber has been a longtime advocate of opening up
trade with Cuba, believing it will boost U.S. business and spread democracy to the communist
regime. It argues the trade embargo has been a failure despite its best intentions.¶ “Instead of undermining the regime, it
has helped the regime. We think opening up trade with Cuba will help spread democracy there,” Kilbride said. ¶ In the letter
from Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s chief lobbyist, the group says it will consider scoring votes on the measure if it reaches the floor.¶ Since 2007, the Chamber has only sent two
other letters to lawmakers on Cuba-related legislation. Neither included language indicating the Chamber planned to score votes.¶ Chamber officials said there simply have not
been votes in the full House or Senate on bills dealing with Cuba for several years that rose to the level of a priority vote for the trade association.¶ The U.S. trade embargo has
been on Cuba for 50 years, and lawmakers opposed to the policy have had little success in opening it up.
Key to agenda – independently shields the link
Lichtblau 12 (Eric, New York Times, 11-29 “Chamber Competes to Be Heard in the Fiscal Debate” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/business/chamber-competes-to-be-heard-in-fiscaldebate.html?_r=0, ken)
Chamber of Commerce executives came to the
White House this week with a far more conciliatory tone, offering up suggestions to avert large budget cuts without having to raise taxes. Enlarge This Image Charles
WASHINGTON — After months of sparring with President Obama in the heat of the campaign season,
Dharapak/Associated Press Thomas J. Donohue after introducing President Obama at a Chamber of Commerce event in 2011. But Mr. Obama’s top advisers were not budging. There would be no deal on the
federal budget deficit, they told chamber executives, without higher taxes, participants said. If there were doubts about the White House’s resolve, Mr. Obama met the chamber’s chief executive afterward for an
For the United States Chamber of Commerce, long the leading business voice in
Washington, this month’s negotiations over the nation’s debt will be a key test of whether it can retain its influence and swagger in the capital even
unscheduled Oval Office chat about the showdown.
after a string of bruising political losses. Many business leaders are looking to the chamber as a bulwark against the White House’s push for higher taxes, but it is unclear if the century-old association has the clout
it once did. Other business groups seen as more open to tax increases have become players in the negotiations, exposing rifts in the private sector. The Chamber of Commerce, in the biggest voter mobilization
effort in its history, spent tens of millions of dollars in support of pro-business candidates, usually Republicans, in the Nov. 6 elections. But the results were disastrous: out of 48 House and Senate candidates that it
spent money to try to either elect or defeat, the outcome went the chamber’s way only seven times, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group that tracks political
spending. If the chamber was an 800-pound gorilla before the elections, “now they’re a wounded 500-pound gorilla,” said Cyrus Mehri, a Washington lawyer for U.S. Chamber Watch, a union-backed group that is
critical of the chamber’s political practices. “But
they’re still a major force to be reckoned with,” he added. As the White House looks to work out a deal with
Congress to avert hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic budget cuts at the end of the year, Mr. Obama and his top economic advisers have been meeting through the week with business leaders to push their
plan for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Obama met Wednesday with chief executives from Goldman Sachs, Coca-Cola, Yahoo and other prominent firms, and he met a day earlier with smallbusiness representatives. The president’s advisers also met with officials from the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a centrist group that has become influential in pushing for a combination of tax increases and spending
cuts. It is led by Erskine B. Bowles, a former Clinton administration official, and Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming. When Mr. Obama met two weeks ago with a dozen corporate leaders
but did not invite the Chamber of Commerce, it was widely seen as a snub of the group over its political attacks during the presidential campaign. But the chamber got its turn Monday. Jack Lew, the White House
chief of staff, and other senior economic advisers listened as chamber executives, including Thomas J. Donohue, the group’s president, and Bruce Josten, its top lobbyist, laid out their ideas for raising significant
revenue without necessarily raising taxes by expanding energy development. “They wrote it down, but where that goes, I don’t know,” Mr. Josten said in an interview. But Mr. Josten said that the White House
advisers stressed that any debt deal would have to include increased taxes at the highest brackets and that if an agreement could not be reached, they were willing to risk the automatic spending cuts — the so-
officials
led Mr. Donohue to the Oval Office for a brief session with Mr. Obama, which chamber officials described as
“positive and constructive.” White House officials would not discuss the president’s meeting with Mr. Donohue or the earlier meeting with chamber executives. An Obama
administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that “the White House does not want to go over the fiscal cliff, but at the same time, we’re not going to accept a bad deal.” The
chamber has already circulated letters in Congress, targeted crucial lawmakers, taken out ads and
prepared position papers and Internet videos intended to discourage any debt deal that it believes would deter private investment and free enterprise
called fiscal cliff option — at the end of the year. “They reiterated that they want the higher rates, and they’ll go over the cliff if they need to,” Mr. Josten said. After the meeting, White House
through higher taxes. While the chamber and its business members often proved the dominant voice on such issues in the past, the competing agendas of different business sectors have in some ways diluted the
chamber’s overall influence. The Fix the Debt campaign, for example, adopted a much higher profile than the chamber in recent weeks with its own flurry of political ads, Washington meetings and news
conferences to push its case for a balanced solution that would probably include tax increases. “There are going to be a lot of distinct voices, and we’re not simply going to throw in with any single coalition,” said
Matthew Shay, president of the National Retail Federation, a trade group that is pushing for a quick end to the debt negotiations. At the same time, Mr. Shay said “there’s no daylight between any members of the
I expect the chamber will continue
to play an enormously influential role in the debate,” he said. Chamber officials acknowledged that they were deeply
disappointed by the poor showing of the Congressional candidates they backed, particularly in the Senate. But they scoffed at the notion, discussed in Washington political and media
circles since the election, that the chamber’s political influence was waning and that the group might become marginalized in the debt negotiations as
a result. “You really think we aren’t going to have any influence?” asked Mr. Josten, the group’s lobbyist. “If that’s the case, why would the White House want to
meet with us?” he said. “My suspicion is that they know we’re going to have some influence on this. I don’t think there’s any
member of Congress out there that doubts that.”
business community” on the overall need to reach an agreement without imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic cuts. “
Plan Popular-Economic Sectors
US economic sectors support the plan – want access to Cuban market
Lee et al 1/31 – Senior Production Editor (Brianna and Stephanie Hanson, “U.S.-Cuba Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, 31 January
2013, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113, accessed 28 June 2013)
U.S. constituencies would like to resume relations. U.S. agricultural groups already deal with Cuba, and other
economic sectors want access to the Cuban market . Many Cuban-Americans were angered by
the Bush administration's strict limits on travel and remittances, though a small but vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban
exiles, many of them based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're polled, the majority of
Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed, and support lifting the travel ban or loosening the
embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization and normalization," says Julia E. Sweig, CFR director of Latin American
Some
studies.
Key to agenda – contribute to campaigns
Gimpel et al 12 – professor of political science at University of Maryland (James G., Frances E. Lee [professor of
government and politics at the University of Maryland-College Park], Michael Parrott [doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland], “Business Interests and the Party
Coalitions: Industry Sector Contributions to U.S. Congressional Campaigns,” NCAPSA American Politics Workshop at American University, 7 January 2012, page 28,
http://home.gwu.edu/~dwh/gimpel_lee_parrott_workshop.pdf, Accessed 28 June 2013
relationships between economic interests and the parties are not distributed
randomly throughout the entire economy. The most partisan sectors are greatly concentrated in
a relatively small share of broad industry classifications. Expansive parts of the U.S. economy
employing millions of people remain undefined by partisan cleavages, including most retail trades and nearly all
Differing types of
service sectors outside of finance, insurance, and real estate. To return to the question of the party polarization of economic interests in the U.S., only around half the
sectors that are consistently active in campaign contributions exhibit any partisan preference. Of those that do, these alignments
evidently have much to do with the parties’ diverging issue positions on energy issues and other labor and regulatory controversies.
AT: Cuba Lobby Powerful
Cuba Lobby is small- has no political weight - easing of travel ban proves no
backlash
(William Vidal, On Two Shores, “The Cuba Lobby represents itself, not the Cuban-American
community,” 4/12/13, http://ontwoshores.com/?p=2088, accessed 6/29/13 , IS)
Must-read article by William Leogrande on Foreign Policy about The Cuba Lobby in DC, and their influence over Washington. I
have a couple issues with this article:¶ 1) the headline “Castro-hating right wing”. To clarify, they’re not the only ones
who hate Castro. An overwhelming majority of Cuban-Americans have no love for Fidel and Raul, and most of us are not right-wing.¶
2) It
depicts the Cuba Lobby as the most powerful lobbying group in America. They are not.
Their PAC raised only $500,000 last election cycle, almost a 40% drop from what they raised in
2008, and is ranked 1,206 out of all PACs in campaign contribution amounts by OpenSecrets.org.
They are not drawing in new donors who actually care about maintaining the embargo, only donors who care
about gaining access to our Cuban-American members of Congress. Their influence is directly
proportional to salience and urgency (or completely lack thereof) of Cuba policy within foreign policy circles. In other words, in the
list of foreign policy priorities our country faces, Cuba ranks very low, and any fruit borne of
reforms implemented today will not be seen for many years. So in the cost-benefit analysis that goes on in
every DC bureaucrats head, the immediate cost of having the insufferable Mario Diaz-Balart or Mauricio Claver-Carone jamming
their noses up your ass and screaming “communist apologists!” through the halls of Capitol Hill, even if they can’t really do anything
to you, is usually higher than any benefit that may come from pushing for changes in Cuba policy. Meanwhile, they’re support in
both the Cuban-American and larger American communities has been steadily plumeting over the past decade. The minute Cuba
becomes a half-way real priority for the Administration or State Department, you will see the Cuba Lobby’s “influence” drop to a
level on par with their OpenSecrets ranking.
Plan Unpopular-Republicans
Republicans oppose travel to Cuba –Jay-Z and Beyoncé trip
Tidsall 4/8 - assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist (Simon, “Time for the U.S. and Cuba to Kiss and Make Up,” CNN, 8 April 2013,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba, accessed 25 June 2013
Right-wing U.S. Republicans are up in arms over Cuba again. Their ostensible cause for concern
is last week's visit to the island by Beyoncé and Jay-Z, who were photographed in Havana,
apparently celebrating their wedding anniversary.
Republicans won’t lift the travel embargo – plan will be a fight
All Things Expounded 12 ([Blog Powered by WordPress], “The Republican Party Platform and the Cuban Embargo,” 7 October 2012,
http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/2012/10/the-republican-party-platform-and-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed 27 June 2013
Republican Party’s 2012 Platform states that they will not lift “trade, travel, and financial sanctions” until
Cuba’s government reflects “the principles codified in U.S. law“.
The
Plan Unpop-Key Congresspeople
Menendez opposes the plan
Manjarres 3/28 – Managing Editor at the Shark Tank (Javier, “FL Democrat Breaks From Wasserman Schultz and Others-‘Lift
the U.S.-Cuban Embargo,’” Shark Tank, 28 March 2013, http://shark-tank.net/2013/03/28/fl-democrat-breaks-from-wasserman-schultz-and-others-lift-the-u-s-cuban-embargo/,
Accessed 27 June 2013
Cuba-Democracy PAC held its annual fundraising luncheon in Miami, Florida, where politicos and politicians put their party politics
aside, in an effort to show their united support for a ‘free Cuba.’ In attendance to the pro-embargo,
A few weeks back, the
anti-Castro event were Senator Menendez and Rep. Joe Garcia, as well as Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Ted
Cruz, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart.
Menendez Key
Menendez is key – amplifies the link
Reuters 5/6 (“Influential U.S. Senator Offers Bill to Arm Syria Rebels,” Thompson Reuters Foundation, 6 May 2013, http://www.trust.org/item/20130506192700y0wjd, Accessed 27 June 2013)
Senator Robert Menendez, the chairman of the influential Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, introduced a bill on Monday that would provide weapons to some vetted groups of Syrian rebels.
WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - U.S.
Rubio Key
Rubio’s key on foreign policy – magnifies the link
Bangor Daily News 12 ([Maine news, sports, politics and election results, and obituaries], “The 50 most powerful Republicans (including Collins and
Snowe), according to Foreign Policy,” 26 August 2012, http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/26/politics/the-50-most-powerful-republicans-including-collins-and-snoweaccording-to-foreign-policy/, Accessed 27 June 2013
Rubio, senator, Fla.¶ The freshman senator from Florida might be best known as one of Romney’s (former) potential picks
for the VP slot, but Marco Rubio has also emerged as a foreign-policy player in his own right. Fluent in Spanish and a
member of the Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the Foreign Relations Committee,
Marco
Rubio has made trips to Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Observers closely eyed a foreign-policy speech Rubio gave at the Brookings Institution in April, in
Rubio has
also aligned himself with the likes of John McCain (supporting a more active U.S. role in Libya, for instance) and George W. Bush (insisting that
the United States can’t rely on the United Nations to deal with Syria and Iran). But Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba, holds relatively
moderate views on immigration — he has floated an alternative to the Dream Act that would grant legal status to some children of undocumented
immigrants — opening a rift with more conservative members of the GOP. According to at least one fellow senator, Joe Lieberman, I, Conn., Rubio is a
“workhorse” when it comes to foreign policy.
which he named neoconservative Robert Kagan’s book “The World America Made” as important in shaping his view of U.S. responsibilities on the global stage.
Cruz Key
Cruz is key to agenda – magnifies the link
Fabian 4/2 – Political Editor at Fusion at ABC News (Jordan, “Why Ted Cruz Is Holding Out on Immigration Reform,” ABC News, 2 April 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-senator-ted-cruz-conservative-holdout/story?id=18864224#.UcyKnhaE6JU, Accessed 27 June 2013
Cruz has quickly become an influential conservative voice in Congress and he has
already attracted 2016 presidential buzz. Latino groups have also closely watched how Cruz, the son of a Cuban immigrant father and one of
Elected just last November,
two Hispanic Republicans in the Senate, handles the issue. His standing in the party has led immigration-reform proponents to covet his support for a reform package.
Ros-Lehtinen Key
Ros-Lehtinen is key – enlarges the link
Sun Sentinel 12 ([major daily newspaper of Broward and South Palm Beach counties], “Ros-Lehtinen among D.C.'s ‘Most Influential Women,’” 13 July 2012,
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-13/news/fl-ileana-ros-lehtinen-top-hat-20120713_1_national-journal-dcs-influential-women, Accessed 27 June 2013
Ros-Lehtinen, South Florida's longest-serving member of Congress, is on a new list of
Washington's 25 most influential women.¶ National Journal consulted 174 political insiders to compile the list.¶ The Miami-Dade
Republican, who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "embodies many of
the elements of the South Florida district that she represents, complete with an almost manic energy and a conservative zeal that she
Ileana
tempers with her fight for gay rights," National Journal says.
Diaz-Balart
Diaz-Balart is powerful in Congress – independently magnifies the link –
especially in Latin American talks
Martinez 12 – journalist and editor (Laura, “Telemundo’s Reporter Without Borders,” Multichannel News, 1 October 2012,
http://www.multichannel.com/content/telemundos-reporter-without-borders/139543, accessed 27 June 2013
Díaz-Balarts are well known in Florida as an influential family with strong ties to politics.
Lincoln Díaz- Balart is a former U.S. congressman; youngest brother Mario currently serves as one.¶ Lincoln
and Mario Díaz-Balart are strong Republicans and staunch opponents of the Castro regime , which comes
The
as a bit of an irony, considering the brothers were actually related to Fidel Castro by marriage at one time. [A sister of Rafael Díaz-Balart Sr., Mirta, was Castro’s first wife. They
Díaz-Balart’s father, Rafael Díaz-Balart y Gutiérrez, was a prominent Cuban
politician, businessman and diplomat; a man who was larger than life and instilled his four sons with a sense of passion for work.
married in 1948, had a son and divorced in 1955.]¶
Plan Unpopular- Cuba Lobby
The Cuba Lobby has huge sway - backlash will block other legislation
Leogrande 4/11 - the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs and frequent
publisher and expert on Latin America. Dean LeoGrande holds a B.A., an M.A., and a Ph.D, all
from Syracuse University. (William M. Leogrande, Foreign Policy, “The Cuba Lobby,” 4/11/13,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z?wp_login_redirect=
0, accessed 6/28/13, IS)
Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of
Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political
denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents
in line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it
came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby
exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus
the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic
members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy
far. Like the China Lobby,
promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative
Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in
the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At
the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban
American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.,
authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval.
Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual
had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its
reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell
Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members
of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by
Today, the political
action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more
campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban--Americans long have
the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo.
presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7
and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s
the Cuba Lobby
has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the
Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil
servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was
documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby,
given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor
reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the
appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped
Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995
migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped
sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could
report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hardliners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s
undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence
officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and
When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in
relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him . Sen. Robert
Menendez, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently
opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his
president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a
$410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed
the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased
restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to
promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S.
policy toward Cuba.
Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired.
Cuban Lobby group opposes travel reform Jilani 12 – former Communications and Outreach Coordinator for United Republic and the
former Senior Reporter-Blogger for ThinkProgress. His work has also appeared in outlets
including Salon and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He graduated from the University of
Georgia in 2009. (Zaid Jilani, Republic Report, “It’s Not Just Ozzie Guillen: How The Cuba Lobby
Paralyzes U.S. Policy,” 4/10/12, http://www.republicreport.org/2012/ozzie-guillen-cuba-lobbyparalyzes-us-policy/, accessed 6/20/13, IS)
This morning it was abruptly announced that Ozzie Guillen, the first-year manager of the Miami Marlins, would be suspended for
five games following comments he made where he offered some mild praise for former Cuban leader Fidel Castro.¶ Guillen was
forced to take the unpaid suspension after he came under intense verbal attack from area interest groups. The barrage that the
Miami Marlins manager is an example of a powerful interest group that has virtually paralyzed US-Cuba relations in the nation’s
capital.¶ Informally referred to by leading writers as the “Cuba Lobby,” this
tight-knit group of Political Action
Committees (PACs), social organizations, and the lawmakers allied to them have successfully
maintained a failed diplomatic freeze, travel ban, and embargo between the United States
and Cuba for decades.¶ By exerting its influence, this lobby forces Washington politicians to
ignore American public opinion at large. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of
Americans favor restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba, and a majority of Americans wanted to see an
end to the embargo as well. Figures and political groups with as varying politics as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Pope, and
former president Jimmy Carter have all called for ending the unilateral sanctions.¶ The
powerful Cuba lobby, based in
the crucial political swing state of Florida, exerts its influence largely through being a powerful
political spender. The U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, for example PAC spent a million dollars in 2008, and has already spent a
quarter of a million dollars during this election cycle. In 2008 and 2010, the majority of the PAC’s funds went to Democrats, but
during the 2012 cycle the organization is spending more heavily in favor of Republicans. It’s treasurer is Gus Machado, a Floridan
wealthy auto dealer who regularly raises millions of dollars for charities in the area.¶ At a fancy gala in 2010, the organization
brought together leading congressional Democrats and Republicans to support the US-Cuba embargo. “When it comes to the topic
of Cuba, first comes Cuba and then comes the party,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a leading embargo proponent, at the event.
The PAC is the largest foreign policy-related PAC spender according to the Center for Responsive Politics.¶ Although it is frequently
referred to as the “Cuba Lobby,” there is little evidence that the policies that the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC and related
organizations and individuals help the Cuban people or advance U.S. interests in Cuba. Their hard line has not ended the Castro
regime and its abuses, or helped advance the welfare of Cubans. Instead, through campaign donations and campaigns of
intimidation, this lobby has effectively paralyzed U.S. policy.