Plan: The United States federal government should normalize economic relations with the
Republic of Cuba.
1AC Solvency
Lifting the embargo would substantially improve relations throughout the world and spur
the economy.
Trani 6/23 --- permanent member Council on Foreign Relations Eugene P. Trani, President
and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, Graduate of the
University of Notre Dame (“Trani: End the embargo on Cuba”, Times Dispatch, June 23, 2013,
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/end-theembargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html, accessed June 28, 2013,
MY)
The Soviet support of Cuba lasted right up to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. That
event shattered the economy of Cuba and many hoped would lead to normal diplomatic and
economic relations between the United States and Cuba. But 22 years later, normal relations are
still not in the cards.In fact, with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act (the “Torricelli” Law)
in 1992 and the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (the Helms-Burton Act) of 1996,
relations have become even more difficult. The result is a patchwork of policies that appear to contradict one another and do
not seem to be a sensible and rational policy for the United States to follow.On the one hand, more than 200,000 Americans are now visiting
Cuba on American Treasury Department-approved licenses annually. The sight of American Airlines planes dropping off and picking up
American citizens at the José Martí International Airport in Havana seems at best surprising. My trip, conducted by Insight Cuba, was one such
officially approved trip. Further, there are now more than $2 billion of remittances sent by Americans to their Cuban relatives annually. So there
are some points of progress in overall Cuban-American relations. At the same time, there
are many significant problems that
tend to hurt the Cuban people most at risk in economic terms. The visit of a cruise ship to a Cuban port results in
that ship being unable, no matter which flag registry the ship has, to dock in the United States for six months. This policy really hurts
the Cuban tourist economy, which could greatly improve employment and job creation across
Cuba. If Cuban materials are used in the construction of cars (more than 4% nickel for example), these cars cannot be sold in the United
States, a policy which works against the rise of an automobile-based manufacturing segment of the Cuban economy.The American embargo has
had, therefore, very significant impact on different parts of the economy in Cuba. In fact, such varied political leaders as the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; George P. Shultz, former Republican secretary of state; and the late former Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern,
have called for the embargo to be lifted and relations to be renewed between Cuba and the United States. Even
polls of Americans
show a majority in favor of an end to the embargo and re-establishing of normal relations
between the countries. My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many different kinds
of groups in Havana, community projects, senior citizens, a health clinic, youth programs, artist and recording facilities, musical ensembles,
historic sites such as Revolution Square and the Ernest Hemingway house and an environmental training facility, and not once did we hear anger
toward the United States or the American people.What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the
people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident
that there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing. Today,
there seem to be both humanitarian and
economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental section of the
economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is also a major diplomatic
factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our policy. What a positive
statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for
the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We
would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right
and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.
1AC Agriculture Advantage—Scenario 1 is Economy
First- Status quo prevents agriculture trade with Cuba
Griswold 05- Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (“Four
Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, 10/12/05, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/fourdecades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed: 7/3/13, zs)
Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of
the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S.
tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods.
In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. The results of
this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased
from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th
last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products. Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in
Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading
exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans.
The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural
export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250
million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a
study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2
billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by
Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports to Cuba, with rice,
poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports.
Removing the embargo is key to agriculture trade
Copeland, Jolly, and Thompson 11- Cassandra Copeland, Curtis Jolly, Henry Thompson, professors of
economics, business, and trade at the University of Auburn (2011, “Journal of economics and business”, PDF,
Auburn, Accessed 6/27/13, http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/cubahistory.pdf, zs)
Cuba has substantial potential to export to the US. Cuba is the largest island in the Caribbean,
about as large in land area as Alabama. Two-thirds of the land in Cuba can be cultivated. Cuba’s
population of 11 million is about twice that of Alabama or about equal to Georgia or the combination of Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Arkansas. Cuba is potentially a major component of the regional economy. Cuba’s major
agriculture exports are sugar, citrus, fish, cigars, and coffee. These crops complement US wheat, rice, meat, poultry,
cotton, soybeans, and feed grains. Cuba also has mineral deposits of nickel (world’s second largest reserves), cobalt,
iron, copper, chromite, manganese, zinc, 12 and tungsten, as well as unexplored petroleum potential. Cuba has no
potential to export manufactures but that would develop with foreign investment. Figure 11 reports
US agricultural exports to Cuba in 2006, led by wheat, soybeans, chicken, corn, and rice. Given
this demonstrated demand, it is safe to say lifting the embargo will increase demand for US
agricultural products. Cuba can compete in only a few international agricultural markets but could supply a
niche organic market in the US as suggested by Kost (1998) who projects annual agricultural exports to
Cuba of $1 billion of US feed grains with a lifted embargo.
The agriculture industry is key to prevent US economic decline
Pulliam 12 – John Pulliam, writer for Galesberg, winner of 2010 AP article contest (“Farmers want Cuban
embargo lifted”, Galesberg, 7/8/12, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-want-Cuban-embargolifted#axzz2Y1R3Us3L , accessed: 7/3/13, ckr)
trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers’
abilities to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products,” said Tamara Nelsen,
senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. “Agriculture has been a bright spot in our
nation’s — and our state’s — economy during the recent downturn. Improving our trade
relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and
national economies.”
“Restoring normal
While there may be some potential for renewed trade with Cuba if the embargo is lifted, Serven thinks it will help
Cuba more than affecting U.S. farmers.
“As far as being a boon for U.S. agriculture, I don’t think that will happen,” he said. “But it’s just the fact that we’re
so close.”
Strom said the trade embargo has very real effects. For instance, rather than buying rice from
Mississippi, which would take three days to get to the island nation, Cuba is forced to buy it from
Vietnam, which takes 28 days to ship the nation, about 100 miles south of Florida.
“So logistically, the cost would be a whole lot cheaper (for Cuba) to buy food from the United States, just because of
transportation costs,” Serven said.
Avoiding US economic decline key to global economy.
BW ‘13
(internally quoting Dr. Venkatesh Bala, chief economist at The Cambridge Group, a part of Nielsen – Business Wire – February 5, 2013 – lexis)
"North
America is slowly but steadily heading in the right direction," said Dr. Bala. "Compared to a year ago,
North America showed progress toward recovery with a six-point year-on-year consumer confidence increase, driven
mainly by a three-point increase in a positive job outlook, up from 37 percent to 40 percent year-on-year. With continued weakness
in Europe and uneven growth in Asia, it may well be that with a brighter job market, the U nited S tates w ill serve as the
critical engine of improved global economic activity in 2013."
Global economic decline causes nuclear war
Auslin ‘9
(Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The
Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on
economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically
sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption
of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is
a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs.
Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses
grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of
repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely
dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has
been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression
inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies
face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the
country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first
part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are
already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers
have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and
immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million
immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor
strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would
dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,
unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know
what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .
1AC OFAC Iran Advantage
Plan boosts OFAC sanctions on Iran – reallocates resources
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way
Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed
7/02/13, AW)
Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to
fighting a Cold War -8 era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 op ed that the US spends
“extraordinary resources” each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources
to the fight against terrorism. 4 While the financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo
may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the
US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing
the embargo. For example, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which
governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions
against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea. OFAC also is responsible for responding
to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By ending OFAC’s need to
regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote those resources to respond to the current
threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks
That revamps sanctions on Iran – previous lack of focus and disorganization
Maberry and Jensen 13 – J. Scott Maberry, J.D, Georgetown University Law Center, International Trade
partner in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group, Mark L. Jensen, J.D,
Harvard Law School, International Trade associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International
Trade Practice Group, (“OFAC gets hot, bothered on Iran and Cuba: how economic sanctions work today”, Report
for Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 5/7/13, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8657e6ce454a-4eaf-ba8b-d225ea59ecdd, Accessed 7/9/13, AW)
People who practice U.S. economic sanctions law like to talk about how sanctions are policy-oriented, or an
engine of U.S. foreign policy. Whereas some laws may be more opaquely political, economic
sanctions and embargoes seem to express most bluntly how international leverage works through
regulation. And yet, a few recent regulatory developments show that the direction that sanctions take is
not always predictable. The U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has
A torrent of development in laws and regulations on Iran served as the
unsurprising focus of this year’s OFAC symposium, held on March 19, 2013, in Washington D.C.
Among the developments were sanctions imposed on non-U.S. banks, a new executive order related
to the purchase of petroleum and petrochemical products from Iran, an expanded scope of the Iran
Transactions and Sanctions Regulations to companies “owned or controlled” by U.S. companies, and a
new statute that targets sectors of the economy related to goods and services to Iran, including
secondary financial transactions in energy, shipping, shipbuilding, precious metal, and graphite. See our
recent posts on Iran here and here. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Iran sanctions program is its
proliferation into not only additional laws and regulations, but also additional regulatory regimes. The
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (“ CISADA”), the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2012 (“NDAA”), and Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (“ITR”),
have created a polyglot system focused on individual sectors of the economy. OFAC presenters at
had a raucously busy year.
the March symposium gave the sense of
a proliferation of laws that is undoubtedly aimed at
accomplishing U.S. foreign policy goals. But the laws are paradoxically both targeted (at industries,
vessels, banks) and incredibly expansive in jurisdiction. The system is the embodiment of the
powerful yet somewhat disorganized U.S. government piling on everything it can to economically
overwhelm Iran. The Iran program also serves as a good case study of how far and wide
economic sanctions can be made to reach. If legislation of past years has proved anything, it is that
the U.S. Congress appears ready to use any and all means within its legislative authority to sanction
Iran. Insofar as Congress is able to map out the reach of the U.S. financial system and economy further, it seems
likely that additional sanctions will be applied.
OFAC is unique – involves allied cooperation – your evidence doesn’t assume that
DoT 05 – United States Department of Treasury, (“OFAC”, Report Written for the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council, June 2005, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFACEnforcement/Documents/ofac_sec_frb.pdf, Accessed 7/9/13, AW)
OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers , and those
engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under
the President’s wartime and national emergency powers, as well as under authority granted by specific
legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze assets under U.S. jurisdiction. Many of the
sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope ,
and involve close cooperation with allied governments. OFAC requirements are separate and
distinct from the BSA, but both OFAC and the BSA share a common national security goal. For this reason,
many financial institutions view compliance with OFAC sanctions as related to BSA compliance
obligations; supervisory examination for BSA compliance is logically connected to the examination of a financial
institution’s compliance with OFAC sanctions.
Sanctions solve Iran prolif – multilateral coalitions – international position of strength
DeLeon et al 12 - Rudy deLeon, National and International Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University, Recipient of The Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Award in 1994, 1995, and 2001,
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal in 2001, Former US Senior Department of Defense Official,
Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress, with Brian Katulis, Peter
Juul, Matt Duss and Ken Sofer, (“Strengthening America’s Options on Iran”, Report for The Center for American
Progress, April 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/iran_10questions_INTRO.pdf, Accessed 7/10/13, AW)
*********NOTE: P5+1 is comprised of: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and
Germany*******
Indeed, amid
an array of political transitions and military conflicts around the globe, the prospect of Iran
acquiring nuclear weapons has galvanized a global debate on how to stop the regime in Tehran
from getting the bomb. This debate has spilled over into the domestic politics of the world’s great
powers, becoming a talking point in the 2012 U.S. presidential election and the subject of behind-the-scenes
discussion during China’s transition to its next generation of political leadership at their Party Congress this fall. In
the Middle East and Central Asia, Iran’s nuclear program has implications for the ongoing civil war in
Syria, a political transition beset by economic troubles in Egypt, and U.S. and NATO ground combat
operations in Afghanistan entering their 10th year. Oil price surges worldwide threaten economic
recoveries around the globe—recoveries Iran could thwart in a number of ways depending on how it reacts to
global pressure to come clean on its nuclear program. Events are quickly producing a decision point: A
concerned Israel
warns the diplomatic community that its window for military options to delay or deny
Iran’s potential weapon is not unlimited due to the progress Iran has made in hardening its nuclear
facilities beyond Israeli capability to penetrate them. At the same time, a vigorous roster of nations is
tightening the burden of economic sanctions against Iran—isolating the country’s already feeble
economy , which survives only because of its vast oil reserves. Iran—a longtime supporter of terrorism, both
directly and through its proxies, with a track record of dissimulation on its nuclear ambitions—has no reservoir of
credibility or good will, and its repeated professions that its nuclear program is peaceful deserve no
benefit of the doubt. Of course Iran could quickly defuse the crisis and allow the inspectors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency full access to all facilities of interest so it can measure and catalogue Iran’s capability to
produce highly enriched uranium (the essential element required for weapons production), and Iran could come
clean on its known nuclear weapons research. As IAEA Director General Yukio Amano affirms , Iran needs “to
cooperate fully with the [International Atomic Energy] Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly
those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, including by
providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency.” It is
Iran’s lack of response that fuels concerns about their nuclear ambitions. Importantly, there is a strong
bipartisan consensus in America and within the inter national community on this single point—an Iranian nuclear
weapon would destabilize the one of the world’s most important oil-producing regions at a critical point in the
global economic recovery, would harm Israel’s security, and would severely undermine the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, much of the political debate in this U.S. election year now distracts from these
central realities. Today the United States is leading a successful three-year global effort to isolate Iran
diplomatically and
implement a broad range of strict economic sanctions targeted at undermining its
nuclear program. The Obama administration’s initial outreach to the Iranian regime in 2009 did not
achieve immediate constructive results, but the demonstration of American good faith forged greater
international unity around the problem and served as an important force multiplier for subsequent
successful efforts to pressure the regime. Now, as talks with the P5+1 approach, Iran must choose how
to respond to the growing global concerns about its nuclear program and make the choice to live up to its
international obligations or face increased international isolation. During the 2008 campaign, candidate
Obama defended his proposed engagement policy by explaining that “we’re [not] going to be able to execute
the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China
that...have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear
weapon.” Affirming his goal of “tough, direct diplomacy with Iran,” Obama acknowledged that
diplomacy “may not work, but if it doesn’t work, then we have strengthened our ability to form
alliances to impose tough sanctions.” Over the past three years, this is precisely what the Obama
administration achieved. The engagement policy has served as an important force multiplier for efforts
to pressure the Iranian government. By giving Iran repeated opportunities to meet its international
responsibilities, this administration has been able to forge a far stronger and more enduring
international coalition to pressure Iran. Far from strengthening the Iranian regime, as some critics
have alleged, Obama’s engagement effort has in fact further isolated it. The United States and its
partners in the P5+1 group are operating from a position of strength that would have been hard to imagine
four short years ago. U.S. policy on Iran should not be determined by partisan politics and easy sound bites. Nor will
U.S. policy objectives be quickly accomplished. Instead, this crisis requires policymakers and all citizens to
challenge their own preconceived notions and make decisions based on facts while preparing fully for all
contingencies.
Iran prolif leads to Middle East arms race – ensures nuclear war
Allison ‘6 – Graham Tillett Allison Jr., Graham Allison is an American political scientist and professor at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (“The Will to Prevent,” Harvard International Law Review,
Fall 2006, page lexis)
Meanwhile, Iran is testing the line in the Middle East. On its current trajectory, the Islamic Republic will become a
nuclear weapons state before the end of the decade. According to the leadership in Tehran, Iran is exercising its
“inalienable right” to build Iranian enrichment plants and make fuel for its peaceful civilian nuclear power
generators. These same facilities, however, can continue enriching uranium to 90 percent U-235, which is
the ideal core of a nuclear bomb. No one in the international community doubts that Iran’s hidden objective in
building enrichment facilities is to build nuclear bombs. If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle
Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could trigger the first multi-party nuclear arms
race, far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Given Egypt’s historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living unarmed
alongside a nuclear Persia are very low. The IAEA’s reports of clandestine nuclear experiments hint that
Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to buy a dozen nuclear warheads
that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in
the US intelligence community would be surprised. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the major financier of
Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s, it is not out of the question that Riyadh and
Islamabad have made secret arrangements for this contingency. Such a multi-party nuclear arms race
in the Middle East would be like playing Russian roulette—dramatically increasing the likelihood of a
regional nuclear war. Other nightmare scenarios for the region include an accidental or unauthorized
nuclear launch from Iran, theft of nuclear warheads from an unstable regime in Tehran, and possible
Israeli preemption against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has implied,
threatening, “Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs
against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.”
1AC Soft Power Advantage
US credibility on the international stage is low now-increased engagement key
Duddy & Mora 2013,Patrick Duddy served as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela from 2007 until 2010 and is
currently visiting senior lecturer at Duke University. Frank O. Mora is incoming director of the Latin American and
Caribbean Center, Florida International University, and former deputy assistant secretary of Defense, (Western
Hemisphere (2009-2013)]¶ ¶ 05.01.2013¶ ¶ ¶ Latin America: Is U.S. influence waning? 5/1/13
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/01/3375160/latin-america-is-us-influence.html, Accessed July 4, 2013, KH)
Is U.S. influence in Latin America on the wane? It depends how you look at it.¶ As President Obama travels to Mexico and Costa
Rica, it’s likely the pundits will once again underscore what some perceive to be the eroding influence of the
United States in the Western Hemisphere. Some will point to the decline in foreign aid or the absence of
an overarching policy with an inspiring moniker like “Alliance for Progress” or “Enterprise Area of the Americas” as
evidence that the United States is failing to embrace the opportunities of a region that is more
important to this country than ever.¶ The reality is a lot more complicated. Forty-two percent of all U.S. exports flow
to the Western Hemisphere. In many ways, U.S. engagement in the Americas is more pervasive than ever, even if more diffused.
That is in part because the peoples of the Western Hemisphere are not waiting for governments to choreograph their
interactions.¶ A more-nuanced assessment inevitably will highlight the complex, multidimensional ties between
the United States and the rest of the hemisphere. In fact, it may be that we need to change the way we
think and talk about the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. We also need to resist the
temptation to embrace overly reductive yardsticks for judging our standing in the hemisphere.¶ As Moises Naim notes in his
recent book, The End of Power, there has been an important change in power distribution in the world away from states toward
an expanding and increasingly mobile set of actors that are dramatically shaping the nature and scope
of global relationships. In Latin America, many of the most substantive and dynamic forms of engagement are
occurring in a web of cross-national relationships involving small and large companies, people-to-people
contact through student exchanges and social media, travel and migration.¶ Trade and investment
remain the most enduring and measurable dimensions of U.S.
International support for lifting the embargo-UN vote proves
Havana Times 12 (“Cuba Embargo Blasted Again at UN 188-3”, Havana Times, November 13 2012,
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=82054, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
HAVANA TIMES (dpa) – The UN General Assembly on Tuesday renewed a demand that the United States lift the economic embargo imposed
on Cuba since the 1960s.
The 193-nation assembly voted 188-3 to adopt an annual resolution, for the 21st consecutive year, calling for UN members to
consider the US embargo against Cuba as illegal and respect international law that reaffirms freedom of trade and navigation. Last
year’s vote was 186-2.
The United States, Israel and Palau voted against the resolution, while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.
Washington has rejected the repeated UN demands to end the embargo. But it has also improved ties with Havana and allowed US citizens to
travel to Cuba.
The resolution, like in previous ones, asked all states that have been implementing the US embargo “to take the
necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in accordance with their legal regime.”
The economic embargo against Cuba was strengthened by US President John F Kennedy in February 1962 following the failure
of US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
The US embargo was further boosted in 1996 by the Helms-Burton Act with the US Congress demanding compliance by all
companies with regard to trade and navigation with Cuba.
- See more at: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=82054#sthash.yJBO6ieX.dpuf
The embargo undermines US influence and soft power
Hansing 11— Katrin Hansing, Associate Professor of Black and Hispanic Studies at Baruch College
(“10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo”, Center for Democracy in the Americas, October 21 2011,
http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/, Accessed: 6/28/13, EH)
In light of the UN Secretary-General’s report on the U.S. embargo of Cuba, and in advance of Tuesday’s vote against it, we offer a series of
statements from a variety of sources–including a retired General, Ronald Reagan’s Agriculture Secretary, an environmentalist, a physician, an
actor/human rights advocate, several scholars, and one of Washington’s leading voices on foreign policy–on why the U.S. should end the
embargo. We hope you read them all.
The embargo undermines U.S. foreign policy interests
“Failure of the U.S. to finally snuff out the last vestiges of the Cold War in the U.S.-Cuba embargo signals impotence in
American strategic vision and capability. Those who support the embargo undermine the empowerment of Cuban citizens, harming
them economically and robbing them of choices that could evolve through greater engagement – exactly what we have seen in transitioning
Communist countries like Vietnam and China. The world is dismayed and rejects yet again America’s nonsensical embargo,
which ultimately makes the U.S. look strategically muddled and petty rather than a leader committed to improving
the global order.”
Steve Clemons, Washington Editor-at-Large, The Atlantic
Senior Fellow & Founder, American Strategy Program
New America Foundation
The embargo hurts U.S. national security interests
“The U.S. embargo against Cuba is a Cold War relic that hurts America and Cuba by preventing normal trade and travel between our
two countries. From the perspective of U.S. national security, not only does the embargo prevent our cooperation with Cuba on
common security issues such as crime and terrorism, it hurts U.S. standing throughout the world by highlighting our
aggression against a neighboring country that poses no threat. The United States demeans itself by this futile and hypocritical
policy. It is long past time to repeal the U.S. embargo against Cuba.”
John Adams, Brigadier General US Army (Retired)
Repealing embargo key to regaining international reputation- Embargo is symbolic
Holmes 10- Michael G. Holmes, MA The School of Continuing Studies, Georgetown (“SEIZING
THE MOMENT,” June 21, 2010, Georgetown,
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holmesMichael.pd
f?sequence=1-Accessed-7-2-13-RX]
From an image stand point repealing the sanctions and removing the embargo is symbolic. It shows Cuba
and the world that although the United States is pro democracy, it does not wish to impose its
values on other nations. The Cuba Democracy Act was an attempt to force democratic changes in Cuba.10 By repealing the act the
United States, illustrates that it respects the sovereignty of nations. Considering that this Act did allow for the application of U.S. law in a
foreign country11, repealing it not only sends the message about U.S. views on sovereignty but also shows that the administration is taking
steps to ensure that sovereignty is actually respected.
Repealing the Helms-Burton Law will certainly stimulate foreign investment in Cuba as well . Many
foreign countries were leery of investing in Cuba out of fear of being sued or losing property under the provisions established by the HelmsBurton Act.12 This
return of foreign investment will further secure Cuba's place in the global
marketplace. It also will help to silence skeptics who will question U.S. intentions. Since the sanctions against Cuba were unilateral U.S.
actions, an unsolicited change in course will undoubtedly spark speculation. Allowing all countries to invest in Cuba again
underscores the United States' position of desiring for all countries to participate in the global
market place. It is difficult to imagine that the benefits of lifting the embargo will not be
immediate and substantial in regards to the United States reputation in the world. Looking at
the long-term benefits of removing the sanctions, the two benefits that stand out the most are
trade and fuel.
US soft power key in order to solve global problems such as economic competitiveness,
terrorism, war, proliferation, disease, human trafficking, and drugs
Kurlantzick 06- Joshua Kurlantzick visiting scholar in the Carnegie Endowment’s China Program and a fellow
at the USC School of Public Diplomacy and the Pacific Council on International Policy; previously foreign editor at
The New Republic, (The Decline of American Soft Power, carnegieendowment.org, 2006,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Kurlantzick.pdf, Accessed: July 10, 2013, KH)
A broad decline in soft power has many practical implications. These include the drain in foreign talent coming to
the United States, the potential backlash against American companies, the growing attractiveness of China and
Europe, and the possibility that anti-US sentiment will make it easier for terrorist groups to recruit. In addition, with
a decline in soft power, Washington is simply less able to persuade others. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush
administration could not convince Turkey, a longtime US ally, to play a major staging role, in part because
America's image in Turkey was so poor. During the war itself, the United States has failed to obtain significant
participation from all but a handful of major nations, again in part because of America's negative image in countries
ranging from India to Germany. In attempts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, Washington
has had to allow China to play a central role, partly because few Asian states view the United States as a neutral,
legitimate broker in the talks. Instead, Washington must increasingly resort to the other
option Nye discusses-force, or the threat of force. With foreign governments and publics suspicious of American
policy, the White House has been unable to lead a multinational effort to halt Iran's nuclear program, and instead has
had to resort to threatening sanctions at the United Nations or even the possibility of strikes against Iran. With
America's image declining in nations like Thailand and Pakistan, it is harder for leaders in these countries to openly
embrace counterterrorism cooperation with the United States, so Washington resorts to quiet arm-twisting and
blandishments to obtain counterterror concessions. Force is not a long-term solution. Newer, nontraditional security
threats such as disease, human trafficking, and drug trafficking can only be managed through forms of multilateral
cooperation that depend on America's ability to persuade other nations. Terrorism itself cannot be defeated by force
alone, a fact that even the White House recognizes. The 2002 National security Strategy emphasizes that winning
the war on terror requires the United States to lead a battle of ideas
against the ideological roots of terrorism, in addition to rooting out and destroying individual militant cells.
North Korea Nuclear EMP kills Millions of Americans Instantly
Maloof 13- F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in
the office of the Secretary of Defense, NORTH KOREAN EMP ATTACK 'UNSTOPPABLE, WND, April 14,
2013, http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/north-korean-emp-attack-unstoppable/, Accessed July 10, 2013, KH)
If North Korea were to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the United States, it could use a long-range missile to
orbit a satellite over the South Pole, putting it in line to fly over Omaha, Neb., and explode it at a 300-mile altitude
where U.S. Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems cannot reach, sources have told WND.¶ In addition, these sources
say, there is no way to determine whether a missile is carrying a dummy or real nuclear warhead, obviating the need
to shoot down any missile that is launched from North Korea, given the public warning by Pyongyang that it intends
to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. ¶ The U.S. has positioned Aegis ships near North Korea and
Japan, but a political decision apparently has been made not to attempt to shoot it down if it is heading for open
water.¶ Sources say, however, that a missile to be launched toward the U.S. would take a trajectory over the South
Pole, and it is questionable whether the U.S. has Aegis assets anywhere along the southerly path such a missile
would take.¶ In addition, the missile would need to be shot down almost after lift-off, since the missile would launch
the satellite relatively quickly into an orbit of 300 miles, which was the altitude of its satellite launch last December. ¶
North Korea, meanwhile, announced in a statement that it has drawn the “arrows” for “merciless retaliatory strikes”
at the U.S. mainland, U.S. military bases in the Pacific and “all other bases where the U.S. imperialist aggression
forces station.¶ “The powerful strike means of the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK [Democratic People's
Republic of Korea] have been put in their places and the coordinates of targets put into the warheads,” a North
Korean statement said. “Just pressing the button will be enough to turn the strongholds of the enemies into the sea of
fire.”¶ “North Korea in December successfully orbited a satellite weighing 220 pounds – so they could deliver
against the United States, or against any nation on Earth, a small nuclear warhead,” said Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, who
served as staff director on the a commission that looked into the effects of an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, on the
national electrical grid system and other critical U.S. infrastructures. ¶ THIS is how an EMP event could bring the
world’s remaining superpower to its knees. Read it in “A Nation Forsaken.”¶ “A nuclear weapon designed
specifically to generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or EMP – a single such ‘super-EMP’ warhead would be
able to collapse the U.S. electric grid and other critical infrastructures, inflicting catastrophic consequences on the
entire nation – would probably be deliverable by North Korea’s so-called ‘space launch vehicle’ over the United
States,” said Pry, who also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. “North Korea orbited its satellite on a
trajectory and at an altitude ideal for making an EMP attack on the U.S.Ӧ Pry pointed out that South Korean military
intelligence has warned not only their government but also the U.S. that North Korea is developing super-EMP
warheads with Russian help.¶ In 2011, Pry pointed out, a military commentator with the People’s Republic of China
stated that North Korea has super-EMP warheads. Data from North Korea’s nuclear tests, he said, are consistent
with a super-EMP warhead.¶ Pry’s comments echo those of former U.S. Ambassador Henry Cooper, in which he
said that North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously
launched southward over the South Pole.¶ “After all,” Cooper said in an interview with WND, “their previous
satellites have been successfully placed in orbits that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP,
attack on the entire continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst.” ¶ Cooper, chairman of the board of High Frontier,
which is dedicated to warning the U.S. against a missile attack, developed the framework for President Ronald
Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. He also pushed for a workable missile defense system for the U.S. and later
became director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under President George W. Bush.¶ Cooper pointed
out that the satellite carrying a nuclear warhead could be detonated at an altitude of 300 miles. With a detonation
over Omaha, he said, it would blanket the entire continental United States with EMP effects, the consequences of
which could, within a year, lead to the death of hundreds of millions of Americans and end our way of life.Ӧ Other
sources have indicated that the 220-pound satellite would be able to carry a 300 kiloton nuclear bomb, similar to the
weight of warheads on U.S. missiles and would be sufficient to create an EMP effect from coast to coast if exploded
at 300 miles above Omaha.¶ “North Korea, Iran and everyone else understands these points – or certainly should if
they have been awake,” Cooper said. “But have they connected the dots?”¶ Cooper said that if the satellite with a
nuclear weapon in it were to come from the southern hemisphere, there may not be sufficient warning and tracking
information to support an intercept attempt before North Korea detonates its nuclear device over Omaha. ¶ He said
North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously launched
southward over the South Pole.¶ “After all, their previous satellites have been successfully placed in orbits that are
optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse attack on the entire continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst,”
Cooper said.¶ “Our current defense is focused on an attack from the north but if the attack came from the south via
satellite, it might not be capable of intercepting the satellite before North Korea detonates its device,” Cooper
warned.¶ “Moreover,” he added, “where there are disputes about whether North Korean ballistic missiles launched in
a normal ballistic trajectory have sufficient range to reach the U.S. mainland, there can be no dispute about whether
a nuclear weapon on a satellite can be detonated on orbit above the United States – or anywhere else on the surface
of the earth.”
Iran prolif leads to Middle East nuclear arms race – causes nuclear war
Allison ‘6 – Graham Tillett Allison Jr., Graham Allison is an American political scientist and professor at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (“The Will to Prevent,” Harvard International Law Review,
Fall 2006, page lexis)
Meanwhile, Iran is testing the line in the Middle East. On its current trajectory, the Islamic Republic will become a
nuclear weapons state before the end of the decade. According to the leadership in Tehran, Iran is exercising its
“inalienable right” to build Iranian enrichment plants and make fuel for its peaceful civilian nuclear power
generators. These same facilities, however, can continue enriching uranium to 90 percent U-235, which is
the ideal core of a nuclear bomb. No one in the international community doubts that Iran’s hidden objective in
building enrichment facilities is to build nuclear bombs. If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle
Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could trigger the first multi-party nuclear arms
race, far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Given Egypt’s historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living unarmed
alongside a nuclear Persia are very low. The IAEA’s reports of clandestine nuclear experiments hint that
Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to buy a dozen nuclear warheads
that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in
the US intelligence community would be surprised. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the major financier of
Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s, it is not out of the question that Riyadh and
Islamabad have made secret arrangements for this contingency. Such a multi-party nuclear arms race
in the Middle East would be like playing Russian roulette—dramatically increasing the likelihood of a
regional nuclear war. Other nightmare scenarios for the region include an accidental or unauthorized
nuclear launch
from Iran, theft of nuclear warheads from an unstable regime in Tehran, and possible
Israeli preemption against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has implied,
threatening, “Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs
against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.”
1AC Human rights Advantage
Advantage __ is human rights:
Two internal links
First is credibility, the US embargo violates the human rights of Cubans
Amnesty International 09—Non-profit organization to protect human rights (“THE US ¶ EMBARGO
AGAINST CUBA ITS IMPACT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS”, Amnesty International,
http://www.amnesty.org/ar/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f8-47a2-a5bdf839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)
“The adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights”, a
Commission on the Promotion and Protection of ¶ Human Rights, concluded that the
¶ study prepared by Marc Bossuyt for the SubUS embargo violates human rights law
in two distinct ¶ ways. Firstly, “the fact that the United States is the major regional economic power and the
¶ main source of new medicines and technologies means that Cuba is subject to deprivations ¶ that
impinge on its citizens’ human rights.” Secondly, by passing legislation that “tries to ¶ force third-party
countries into embargoing Cuba as well” – the 1992 Torricelli Act – the US ¶ government attempted to
turn “a unilateral embargo into a multilateral embargo through ¶ coercive measures, the only effect of
which will be to deepen further the suffering of the ¶ Cuban people and increase the violation of their human
rights”.34
The embargo doesn’t work- it’s just a scapegoat
Bandow 12 --- Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special
assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, December
11, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo,
accessed July 4, 2013, MY)
The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The
policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the
Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana.¶ Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty
authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American
assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance. ¶
Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was
restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havana’s American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also
pressed its allies to impose sanctions.¶ These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cuba’s reliance on the Soviet Union.
Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba
and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from
traveling to America.¶ On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions,
even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability
Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of
embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of
Cuban products for personal consumption.¶ “¶ Lifting
sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the
power of free people to spread liberty.Ӧ Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans,
as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the president’s discretion. Moreover,
UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. ¶ It is far past time to end the embargo.¶
During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis.
With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro
dictatorship.¶ However,
the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with
little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable impact
on any important U.S. interest.¶ The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only
victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone
equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is
virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is
policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in
embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty
enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.¶ The
power. Indeed, it has consistently used the
on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo
and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the
last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all
it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.Ӧ
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade
ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for
eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the
totalitarian model in Cuba.”
Second is oppression, the embargo allows the Cuban government to commit atrocities
against its people, lifting solves
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN
EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
Although America’s previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have all failed
at achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy alternative for promoting
democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not attempted is the exact opposite of the
approach it has taken for the past half century. Namely, the United States should lift the embargo on Cuba
and reopen diplomatic relations in order to work internationally on improving human rights in
Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely by the United States, the human
rights situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards Cuba has been delayed long
enough.
§ 4.1: Reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba will decrease the chances of conflict and will
promote cooperation between the two countries economically, politically and socially. Diplomatic relations
and negotiations have proven to be effective in the past in similar situations, such as the renewed
relations between Egypt and Israel following the Camp David Accords. As Huddleston and Pascual
state, “a great lesson of democracy is that it cannot be imposed; it must come from within. […] Our policy
should therefore encompass the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban
people to engage in and direct the politics of their country” (Huddleston 14). The mobilization of the
Cuban people on the issues of democratization, which are inherently linked to the human rights violations in Cuba,
is a first step to producing changes in Cuba. American engagement with the Cuban people, currently lacking under
the embargo policy, will provide the impetus in Cuban society to produce regime change. Furthermore, integrating
U.S.-Cuba relations on a multilateral level will ease the burden on the United States in fostering
democracy and a better human rights record in the country, as other states will be more involved in the process. In
contrast to a policy of isolation, normalized relations will allow America to engage Cuba in new areas,
opening the door for democratization and human rights improvements from within the Cuban state itself.
§ 4.2: With diplomatic relations in place, the United States may directly promote human rights in the
country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration and mediation. Providing the support, resources, and
infrastructure to promote democratic systems in Cuba could produce immense improvements to
the human rights situation in the nation. Normalizing diplomatic relations with the state will also allow America
to truly support freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, which it cannot currently promote under the isolationist
policy. Furthermore, through diplomatic relations and friendly support, Cuba will be more willing to participate in
the international system, as well as directly with the United States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the
international community as a whole, helps and supports Cuba’s economic growth, Cuban society will eventually
push for greater protection of human rights.
§ 4.3: Lifting
economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to
democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the
Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to
democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve
economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of
democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.
§ 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and
improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated
policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to
implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy
and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such
a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting
democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above,
engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will
provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater
attention to human rights violations.
US needs to adopt consistent strategy to human rights to gain credibility and end
oppression
McDonough 2/11-- Amy McDonough, Program Assistant with the Open Society Foundations, previously
worked at John Snow, Inc. (JSI) on USAID’s Maternal and Child Health Project, B.A. in Diplomacy and World
Affairs from Occidental College (“Human Rights and the Failings of U.S. Public Diplomacy in Eurasia”, HuffPost,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-mcdonough/human-rights-and-the-fail_b_2664667.html, Accessed 7/10/13,
jtc)
The United States has two distinct approaches to human rights violations in the countries of the former Soviet
Union.¶ When it is in Washington's perceived strategic interest, the U.S. government normally remains
quiet. When its strategic interests are not at stake, U.S. officials speak forcefully and work to
expose human rights violations and corruption.¶ This inconsistent approach fuels cynicism toward
the United States when it professes support for human rights. The approach also limits the
incentives for governments in the region to improve their behavior and it fosters the perception
that the United States is not a legitimate global protector of human rights. These inconsistencies
become abundantly clear by comparing U.S. officials' public statements on Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus,
Tajikistan and Russia, as shown in a recently published OSF policy paper, "Human Rights and the Failings of U.S.
Public Diplomacy in Eurasia."¶ Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which provide critical supply routes to U.S. troops
in Afghanistan, are rarely criticized. U.S. officials tend to emphasize the positive aspects of the respective
countries' behavior while ignoring persistent violations of human rights. When U.S. officials do mention human
rights and democracy, they are usually buried at the end of a list of issues. But the United States takes the opposite
approach toward Belarus. U.S. officials strongly condemn human rights violations and treat improvements in
democratic governance as a requirement for improving bilateral relations. ¶ In Russia, the United States takes a
middle-of-the-road approach, addressing human rights and democracy problems while making clear that it considers
these issues separate from other areas on which it seeks progress. The volume and stridency of U.S. rhetoric
rises and falls depending on the state of play in other areas of the relationship with Russia. This
approach underscores the reality that the United States will publicly comment on Russia's human rights and
democracy problems only to the extent that its comments will not have a detrimental impact on its other interests.¶
To be sure, a one-size-fits-all approach to U.S. public diplomacy on human rights and democracy across its many
diverse bilateral relationships is not feasible. Nevertheless, the United States should develop a more
consistent approach to defending human rights to live up to its own standards. As former Secretary
of State Clinton's said in her last television interview: ¶ "... I believe that what we've done is to pioneer the new
diplomacy, taking the best and continuing the traditions of... government-to-government negotiations, whether it's a
trade treaty or a peace treaty, but also expanding our aperture so that we understand that the United States must tell
its story better... must stand for our values more strongly."¶ The beginning of the second Obama Administration
presents an opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its values by taking the following steps: ¶ Give greater
weight to public diplomacy considerations in determining its approach to human rights and democracy. These issues
should not only be discussed privately between governments; the United States needs to show the public in
the region that it cares enough to speak publicly about these issues.¶ Speak more forthrightly about
human rights in countries where it has strategic interests. There is significant room to increase pressure on countries
such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, whose governments will not change course without greater pressure from the
United States and the international community.¶ Weave human rights into discussions of other issues and address
them concurrently, rather than "last but not least." Last is least. It is a means of trying to ensure that unpleasant
discussions on human rights will not poison discussions on other strategic issues. Treating human rights and
democracy on a par with other issues will show the United States' commitment to these issues
and encourage real progress.¶ If the United States starts treating these issues more consistently, leaders of
oppressive regimes in the region will know that they will face increased pressure on the
international stage if they do not choose to fully respect the rights and freedoms of their citizens.
As importantly, their citizens will know that the United States is truly committed to supporting the universal values
of human rights and democracy.
The Cuban embargo is inhumane and Genocidal
Schweid 08 – Barry Schweid, AP diplomatic writer (“Cuban diplomat: US embargo is akin to
genocide”, USA Today, 10/24/2008, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-242543966879_x.htm, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH)
WASHINGTON — Looking ahead to a new American administration, Cuba's top diplomat in Washington opened a campaign Wednesday to
generate world pressure to kill a half-century old U.S. trade embargo that he likened to genocide.
"It's equivalent to genocide; its intention is strangulation," Jorge Bolanos said in an Associated Press interview a week before
Cuba plans to ask the U.N. General Assembly to condemn the U.S. boycott of his country.
Bolanos steered clear of presidential politics, but he said Cuba was ready for talks with the United States "if the U.S. considers Cuba
an equal partner in negotiations."
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions
and would ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families in Cuba.
Republican nominee John McCain, meanwhile, has called the offer to meet "the wrong signal," but also has said he favors easing restrictions on
Cuba once the United States is "confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made."
The United States has no diplomatic relations with Cuba and lists the country as a state sponsor of terror. The trade embargo, imposed in 1962,
has been tightened during President Bush's two terms.
"The last eight years have seen the most ruthless and inhumane application of the blockade," Bolanos said.
It "typifies the act of genocide" and from the start was designed to undermine the Cuban revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro, the
diplomat said. Forced to retire because of intestinal illnesses, Fidel yielded control of the government to his brother, Raul.
"He is better and better every day," Bolanos said. "He is writing." But Bolanos said he did not know if Fidel Castro, now 82, would be able to
participate in the half-century anniversary celebration of the revolution in Santiago at the end of the year.
Bolanos, who heads Cuba's "interest section" in Washington out of the embassy of Switzerland, said he had "no doubt the blockade is going to
disappear" at some point.
Next Wednesday, the U.N. General Assembly will consider a resolution calling on the United States to end the trade embargo. Every year for the
past 17 years, the Assembly has approved Cuba's resolution, but the United States has not yielded.
"It is the most isolated issue at the U.N.," Bolanos said, and the U.N. has "a psychological and moral effect."
The diplomat, a former ambassador to Mexico, Brazil and Britain, predicted the embargo, in time, will "disappear."
Representing a government the United States shuns, Bolanos said he is limited in his travels to the Washington area and is permitted among
government offices only to visit the State Department, where he said he has had occasional meetings.
However, he said, the diplomatic community has treated him as "an ambassador in full capacity."
Again and again, in a 50-minute interview conducted mostly in English, Bolanos returned to the U.S. embargo and its impact.
He said a few sick Cuban children have been unable to receive proper medical treatment because the United States
would not approve the export of catheters. Some material for the blind also is under boycott, and Cuba was unable to
purchase washing machines from Mexico because they had parts manufactured in the United States, he said.
"Eleven million Cubans live under the blockade's effects," he said. "Each day, each of them, child, woman, man,
elder of whatever social position or religion, suffers without distinction, the perverse effects of the blockade ."
The cost to Cuba has risen to $93 billion, but the blockade has failed to undermine the Cuban government "because of the irrevocable will of the
Cuban nation to defend its legitimate right to self-determination," the ambassador said.
1AC Democracy Advantage
Lifting embargo starts democracy chain
Arzeno 12—MBA in military art and science strategy Mario A. Arzeno, M.B.A. of military art and
science strategy, University of Miami. She is also a member of the Inter American Defense board. Created on
March 30th, 1942, the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) is the oldest regional defense organization in the
world. Its main purpose is to provide the OAS and its member states with technical and educational advice
and consultancy services on matters related to military and defense issues in the Hemisphere in order to
contribute to the fulfillment of the OAS Charter. The IADB enjoys technical autonomy in carrying out the
purpose and functions contained in these Statutes, taking into account the mandates of the OAS (General
Assembly, Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Permanent Council) Currently, the
IADB has 27 Member States and its structure is composed by the Council of Delegates, by the Secretariat and
by the Inter-American Defense College, bringing together civilian and military representatives of various
American countries. (“THE U.S. EMBARGO ON CUBA: A TIME FOR CHANGE?”, BiblioScholar, 9/18/12,
Page 51, Print, Accessed 7/3/13, jtc)
Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However, free
trade and open markets do promote open
economies and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better opportunities and less
poverty. Less poverty equals stability. Charles William Maynes, President of the Eurasia Foundation and a leading political
scientist in the United States calls this idea of free markets promoting democracy “Liberal
Internationalism.” He argues open markets lead to the formation of a middle class; the middle class
then brings pressure on non-democratic governments to open the political process; once that
opening occurs, democracy develops. With Cuba’s proximity to the United States, democracy is inevitable. It will be a slow
process. Nevertheless, it will happen, as it has in countless other countries like the Dominican Republic, Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and the
other thirty-one out of thirtytwo countries in the Latin American region. The
first step before any real change happens in Cuba must be
engagement within our own borders with the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The
CANF is without question the center of gravity for this issue. The CANF is single handedly preventing progress in the Cuba policy. Clausewitz
defines a center of gravity as “the hub of all power and movement, on which everything else depends. That is the point against which all our
energies should be directed.” The United States should focus its energy on encouraging the CANF to reform its uncompromising stance against
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 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
Castro.
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 restrictions on the sale of food and
medicine, followed by reforming the Torricelli Bill and the Helms-Burton Act.
Attempt to undermine Cuban regime without promoting democracy will result in war
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN
EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13,
CAS)
§ 3.3: The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military
conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargo’s explicit goal — creating an insurrection in
Cuba to overthrow the government — is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As
Ratliff and Fontaine detail, “Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources […]” (Fontaine 57),
especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like America’s current situation with isolated rogue
states such as Iran and North Korea, Cuba’s isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the
American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are inherently counterproductive for
the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights.
Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding, and
distracts the US from hotspots including Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea
Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (“CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?”
3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation
only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming
authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to
exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for
instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is
debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will
only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S.
maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In
the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this
time the number could be several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.¶
Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational
criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does
not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow
rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there
may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the
Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no
Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of
operation and accelerate considerably.¶ In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for
radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export
terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism
gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies,
that are budding throughout the region. In light of
a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the
conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment
throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems.¶ U.S. domestic political support is also turning
threatening the stability of the fragile democracies
against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida;
their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent
polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with
regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to
The
U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration,
given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional
American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT
will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many
military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot
spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable
crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the
Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for
U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all
or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to
sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of
U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)¶ The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then?
the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro
Cuba?
Democracy solves political stability and global conflict
Griswold 07 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy
Studies (“Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle”, April 20, 2007,
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/trade-democracy-peace-virtuous-cycle, accessed July 10, 2013,
MY)
The good news does not stop there. Buried beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an underappreciated
but encouraging fact: The
world has somehow become a more peaceful place.¶ A little-noticed headline on an
Associated Press story a while back reported, “War declining worldwide, studies say.” In 2006, a survey
by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed
conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing
conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute’s latest report found that 2005 marked
the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.¶ The
death toll from
war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, “The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the
post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number.” Current
estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in
1951 during the Korean War.¶ Many causes
lie behind the good news—the end of the Cold War and the
spread of democracy, among them—but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace.
Far from stoking a “World on Fire,” as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations
have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.¶
First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies
tend not to
pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world’s countries today
are democracies—a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While
it’s true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for
democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries
turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies.¶ A second and even
more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined
with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger
government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically
raised the economic cost of war.¶ The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on “Economic Freedom and
Peace” by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage
in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the
probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, “Making
economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the
least free states are about 14 times as
conflict prone as the most free.”¶ By the way, Dr. Gartzke’s analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in
determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.¶ A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to
acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly
measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard
assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside
their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home.
In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. ¶ Of course, free trade and globalization
do not guarantee peace. Hot-blooded nationalism and ideological fervor can overwhelm cold economic calculations. Any relationship involving
human beings will be messy and non-linier. There will always be exceptions and outliers in such complex relationships involving economies and
governments. But deep trade and investment ties among nations make war less attractive.¶ A Virtuous Cycle of Democracy, Peace and Trade¶
The global trends we’ve witnessed in the spread of trade, democracy
and peace tend to reinforce each other in a
grand and virtuous cycle. As trade and development encourage more representative government, those governments provide more
predictability and incremental reform, creating a better climate for trade and investment to flourish. And as the spread of trade and
democracy foster peace, the decline of war creates a more hospitable environment for trade and
economic growth and political stability.
Ag Adv AT: Cuba not key to US Ag
Cuba markets key to U.S. agriculture
Williams 02—Graduate of University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture (“MORE ASSISTANCE PLEASE:
LIFTING THE CUBAN EMBARGO MAY HELP REVIVE AMERICAN FARMS”, Drake Journal of Agricultural
Law, 1/2002, http://students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol07No2-Williams.pdf, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
American farmers are at a point where they desperately need to search for new avenues and alternatives
to increase their profits and pull themselves out of financial difficulty. I believe that one such way is lifting the highly
controversial Cuban embargo, thus granting American farmers entrance into the Cuban market. It is apparent that Cuba has a
need for food and American farmers are looking to increase foreign markets. Therefore, lifting the Cuban
embargo may help to solve both countries’ problems. Recently, there has been widespread support for lifting the Cuban food and medicine
embargo by American farmers and Congressmen because it is estimated that Cuba buys a little less than one billion dollars of food annually from
countries such as Canada, Europe, and Latin America.110 Any well-trained businessman knows that a
billion-dollar market is a
gold mine in the world of economics.111 And, any well-trained businessman knows that “opening additional
export markets,” a billion dollar one at that, is vital to any “industry that is in a severe economic crisis.”112
Therefore, many American farmers and certain Congressman have taken steps to open the Cuban market to American Farmers.113 For example,
Representative Nick Lampson of Texas, along with several rice farmers, traveled to Cuba in search of new export markets, in turn, they asked
United States lawmakers to lift the restrictions on food and medicine sales to Cuba.114 Representative Lampson believes that “the objectives for
which [the embargo] was created no longer makes any sense in either political or economic terms.”115 Furthermore, Representative Lampson
believes that the economic
sanctions specifically hurt two groups of people, “the Cuban people who
need our food, and United States farmers who can produce it in abundance.”116 Other Congressmen have
also asked for lifting the embargo, mainly because of the rising interest and influence from agricultural and business groups who want to transact
business with Cuba.117 For example, in March 2000, Senator Jesse Helms, an outspoken supporter of the embargo, passed a bill that would
permit the sale of American food and medicine to the Cuban people.118 It is also believed that the American public is even changing its views
about the embargo.119 Several polls showed that the Cuban embargo support of the past was beginning to fade because six of ten Americans
backed the sanctions; today, forty-seven percent of the American public feel its time to remove Cuba’s sanctions.120 Furthermore, at least thirtyeight powerful and influential farm groups and agribusiness companies support lifting the sanctions against Cuba.121 More support is soon to
follow, especially since two ships carrying U.S. chicken arrived in Cuba, completing the first trade between the two nations since the embargo
was first implemented.122 Moreover at that time, more shipments were expected to bring about $30 million dollars worth of American wheat,
corn, soybeans, rice, and chicken.123 This magnitude of support clearly demonstrates the eagerness of American farmers and businesses to tap
into the economic opportunities that are present in Cuba.124 But the recent food sales to Cuba will surely fuel the debate in the United States
between American farmers and corporations who would like to see an end to the embargo, and Cuban exile groups who would like to make the
sanctions tougher.125 If the United States government were to lift the Cuban embargo to provide assistance to the American farmer, then such a
move will give them access to a new billion-dollar market in which to sell its food. More importantly, this new billion-dollar market will
ultimately provide American farmers with some of the aid that they so desperately seek. Clearly, American farmers want, need, and feel that they
should have the opportunity to tap into this market, just as farmers and businessmen from other nations have. Presently, other countries have a
head start with Cuban investment.126 However, as a practical matter, tapping into this market could be beneficial to both countries because Cuba
is so close to the United States.127 Therefore, this advantage afforded to other countries could shift to the United States simply because of the
proximity between the two nations.128 B. The United States’ Proximity to Cuba Cuba is only ninety miles south of the United States.129 Thus,
American
farmers’ products could be easily and quickly transported to Cuba if the embargo were lifted.131 C. The Cuban
both countries could save considerable amounts of time and money because of reduced transportation costs.130 Moreover,
Economy The Cuban economy is in terrible shape.132 Presently, “the Cuban economy has stagnated because its primary benefactor, the former
Soviet Union, is no longer able to provide it significant financial support.”133 Again, between 1989 and 1990, “Cuba lost its major commercial
markets together with the Soviet subsidies it had been receiving.”134 Moreover, from 1959 to 1994, Cuba’s GNP fell from U.S. $32.5 billion to
U.S. $ 18.6 billion.135 During that same time, the total worth of Cuba’s exports fell from U.S. $5.4 billion to U.S. $1.7 billion.136
AG Adv EXT: Removal key to Ag
Lifting the embargo benefits the US agricultural industry, USITC study
Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional
Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”, March 29, 2013, FAS,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) produced a study in 2007 analyzing the effects of both U.S.
government financing restrictions for agricultural exports to Cuba and U.S. travel restrictions on
the level of U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.48 At the time of the study, the U.S. share of various Cuban agricultural imports
was estimated to range from 0-99% depending on the commodity. If U.S. financing restrictions were lifted, the study
estimated that the U.S. share of Cuban agricultural, fish, and forest products imports would rise
to between one-half and two-thirds. According to the study, if travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens were lifted, the influx of
U.S. tourists would be significant in the short term and would boost demand for imported agricultural products, particularly high-end products for
the tourist sector. If
both financing and travel restrictions were lifted, the study found that the largest
gains in U.S. exports to Cuba would be for fresh fruits and vegetables, milk powder, processed
foods, wheat, and dry beans.
In 2009, the USITC issued a working paper that updated the agency’s 2007 study on U.S. agricultural sales to
Cuba. The update concluded that if U.S. restrictions on financing and travel were lifted in 2008, U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba would have increased between $216 million and $478 million and
the U.S. share of Cuba’s agricultural imports would have increased from 38% to between 49%
and 64%.49 Among the U.S. agricultural products that would have benefited the most were wheat, rice, beef, pork,
processed foods, and fish products. In general, some groups favor further easing restrictions on
agricultural exports to Cuba. U.S. agribusiness companies that support the removal of restrictions
on agricultural exports to Cuba believe that U.S. farmers are unable to capitalize on a market so
close to the United States. Those who support the lifting of financing restrictions contend such an
action would help smaller U.S. companies increase their exports to Cuba more rapidly. Opponents
of further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba maintain that U.S. policy does not deny such sales to
Cuba, as evidenced by the large amount of sales since 2001. In particular, some agricultural producers that export to
Cuba support continuation of the provision requiring payment of cash in advance because it ensures that they will be
paid.
Lifting Embargo key to Farm exports/ imports.
Griswold 09 Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. (6/27/13, “The US
Embargo of Cuba is a Failure”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)
Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation’s charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human
rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It
has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the
Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it
has deprived Americans of their freedom
to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. Congress and
President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.”As a tool of US foreign policy, the
embargo actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island’s Caribbean-style
socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their
communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000,
Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest
opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top
US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for
US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in
Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export
financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market
driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in
the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic,
Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on
US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.
Advocates of the
embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it’s true that the government in Havana,
because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US
products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. if more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same
time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could
acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of “bread for beaches”, “food for fun” trade
relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The
unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the
decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm
exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban
people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
Lifting Embargo Key to Agriculture
Danielson 13 Richard Danielson, covers city government and politics in Tampa. He grew up in Clearwater,
graduated from Vanderbilt University and joined the Times in 1987. (“U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor: Lift Cuba embargo,
travel limits”, Tampa Bay Times, April 8, 2013, http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/us-rep-kathy-castor-liftcuba-embargo-travel-restrictions/2113828, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
companies, except for computer and some high-tech companies, can sell to Cuba now — for cash. What the embargo
prevents, he said, is extending the regime credit, and he said it should since he doesn't believe the nation would repay its debts.
He also predicted opening Cuba to tourism would hurt Florida's economy. "If the travel ban is lifted, there ain't going to be a tourist in our neck of
the woods for five years, because every tourist is going to go south," he said. While Fernandez said Castor's trip was valid and lawful, he
contended her proposals do nothing but give credibility and propaganda points to a dictatorship. "She joins Beyoncé, Flake and all the terrorists
of the Western hemisphere in their expression of solidarity with the repression and tyranny of the Cuban regime," Fernandez said. Castor said
such critics "need to recognize the fact that there are new, privately owned small businesses — restaurants everywhere, hotels and motels. Reform
is happening, and much of the money is not going to support the actual government. It is going to those individuals, just like the remittances.
"Every American should be able to travel" to Cuba, she said, "including Beyoncé and Jay-Z, and including the people in the Tampa Bay area —
and they should fly out of Tampa."
Lifting Embargo key to agriculture sector.
Lloyd 11 Delia Lloyd, PhD in political science.
(“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Huffpost Politics, 2011, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to the
tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250 ,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United
States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous
boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13
million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between 18
and 42 percent.
The embargo hurts the US agricultural industry.
Grogg 06- Patricia Grogg; Cuban correspondent to IPS, studied Journalism in the University of Havana (“Cuba
Embargo’s Boomerang Effect” IPS, October 2006, http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/cuba-embargosboomerang-effect/, accessed: 6/27/13, ML)
Washington’s embargo against Cuba also has an impact on the United States economy and prevents
millions of U.S. citizens from benefiting from Cuban medical progress, according to a report released by the Cuban foreign ministry.
The text of the report will be presented at the United Nations General Assembly, which on Nov. 8 will be examining for the fifteenth consecutive
year the need to end the embargo imposed by Washington on Havana more than four decades ago. The document states that “because of the
blockade regulations” it has been impossible to begin clinical trials in the U.S. with TheraCIM, a Cuban pharmaceutical product for treating brain
tumours in children.
TheraCIM is produced by the Molecular Immunology Centre, which in 2004 made a deal with U.S. company CancerVax to develop and produce
therapeutic vaccines against cancer.
This medication is registered in Cuba and other countries for treating cancer of the head and neck, and has been proved to reduce tumour mass. It
could benefit children in the United States and other countries with this type of cancer, the report points out.
It also adds that were it not for the embargo, millions of people in the United States suffering from diabetes could benefit from Citoprot P, a
unique product and treatment method that accelerates healing of diabetic foot ulcers, reducing the risk of lower extremity amputations.
Citoprot P was developed by the Cuban Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. According to the foreign ministry report, about 20.8
million people in the United States suffer from diabetes, a chronic incurable disease.
The restrictions that Cuba calls a blockade and the U.S. an embargo have cost this Caribbean country 86.1 billion dollars in total damages
throughout the period, including four billion in 2005 alone, the document says.
Last year the U.N. approved by 182 votes the Cuban motion in favour of lifting the embargo. The motion was first set before the U.N. General
Assembly in 1992, when only 59 countries voted in favour of the resolution.
The report states that the ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba causes tourist agents in the U.S. losses of 565 million dollars per million U.S. tourists who
are prevented from visiting the country.
An estimated 1.8 million U.S. tourists could have vacationed in this Caribbean island in 2005, but because of the ban, U.S. tourist agencies lost
potential income of 996 million dollars, the report says.
In addition, the U.S. imports about 148,000 tons of primary nickel and some 10,000 tons of cobalt annually “from distant markets.”
But “If the blockade did not exist,” it could purchase these raw materials from Cuba, only 200 kilometres away, the report notes.
At present Cuba produces about 77,000 tons of nickel a year, and output is set to increase through an investment programme agreed with Canada
in March 2005 for the expansion and modernisation of a joint venture company to exploit the mineral.
Cuba has proven nickel reserves of 800 million tons, and potential reserves are estimated at two billion tons. The country’s cobalt reserves
amount to approximately 26 percent of total world reserves, according to official sources.
In presenting the report, Cuban deputy foreign minister Bruno Rodríquez said on Monday that the George W. Bush administration has created
“an inter-agency task force on Cuban nickel,” to monitor and prevent sales of this strategic mineral.
Energy is another good business that Havana says U.S. companies are missing out on, because they are forbidden to participate in prospecting for
oil on Cuba’s undersea platform in the Gulf of Mexico, only 137 kilometres from Florida.
The platform to the north of Cuba has an estimated potential of between one billion and 9.3 billion barrels of crude and between 1.9 trillion and
22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
These estimates in the Cuban foreign ministry’s report are attributed to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which said “the possibilities of
success are of the order of 95 percent.”
In 1999 Cuba opened up to tender 112,000 square kilometres of its waters in the Gulf of Mexico, divided into 51 blocks, for foreign exploration
aimed at eventual exploitation.
The Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF currently has a contract to drill in six of these blocks, with a total surface area of 10,700 square
kilometres. This year, however it decided to spread the risk and has sold a 30 percent share in the venture to each of two other companies, from
India and Norway, retaining 40 percent itself.
The Canadian firm Sherritt International has also signed a contract for four blocks in this deep water drilling area.
Legislation approved in 2000 by the U.S. Congress permits the sale of foods to Cuba, an
exception to the embargo that began to be implemented in 2001.
Between late 2001 and 2004, Cuban purchases from U.S. firms totalled over one billion dollars
in cash.
In 2005, Cuba had earmarked between 700 and 800 million dollars to buy food from the United States. But Washington tightened
its trading restrictions with Cuba, and the trade dropped to some 474 million dollars.
“Due to the obstacles to trade imposed by the blockade, U.S. agricultural exporters lost income of
about 300 million dollars, which were used for purchases in other markets,” the Cuban report said.
Ag Adv A2: Cuba Says No
Cuban farmers want the embargo lifted—key to agriculture trade
Pulliam 12- John Pulliam, Senior Analyst, Risk Management at OneAmerica, Columbia University (“Farmers
want Cuban Embargo Lifted”, 6/8/12, Galesburg, http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-wantCuban-embargo-lifted#axzz2Xzqoe8Ai, Accessed: 7/3/13, zs)
Grant Strom, who farms near Williamsfield, and David Serven, a St. Augustine-area farmer, were among more than
20 Illinois Farm Bureau members and staff from across the state who traveled to Cuba on June 28 through July 2 in
an effort to promote the resumption of normal trading relations with the country.
Strom, who was impressed by the Cuban people, said U.S. farmers can sell their products to the
Caribbean nation, but there are a number of hurdles to jump to do so. For instance, the U.S.
government will not allow Cuba to buy agriculture products on credit. “If Cuba wants to buy a barge
load of wheat, they have to pay for it in cash,” he said.
While products such as coffee, rum and cigars are produced in Cuba and in demand in the U.S., “They can’t sell
those things back to us,” Strom said. He said those restrictions hurt farmers in the U.S., who cannot
readily sell their crops to the potential market, as well as the average Cuban, rather than
government officials in the Communist country.
Food shortage “They’re on the brink of a food shortage in Cuba,” Strom said. Serven said each Cuban
has a food coupon book. “They can go to market and buy their needs at subsidized costs,” he said.
Serven said Cubans used to be able to use coupons to buy household goods, as well, but those are no longer
available.
“Restoring normal trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois farmers’
abilities to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products,” said Tamara Nelsen,
senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. “Agriculture has been a bright spot in our
nation’s — and our state’s — economy during the recent downturn. Improving our trade relations with
Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and national economies.” While there
may be some potential for renewed trade with Cuba if the embargo is lifted, Serven thinks it will help Cuba more
than affecting U.S. farmers.
“As far as being a boon for U.S. agriculture, I don’t think that will happen,” he said. “But it’s just the fact that we’re
so close.” Strom said the trade embargo has very real effects. For instance, rather than buying rice from Mississippi,
which would take three days to get to the island nation, Cuba is forced to buy it from Vietnam, which takes 28 days
to ship the nation, about 100 miles south of Florida.
Cuba will say yes – high demand
Gegg and Larose 7 – Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica
Farmer Grower, (“Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo”,
Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year
referenced was 2007),
http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift
%20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)
We found the country very anxious to buy U.S. commodities .” Unfortunately, the
restrictions that they pay cash before the product leaves the United States has hampered their
ability to buy. Yet they have been buying a half million metric tons or 20 million bushels of
corn annually from the United States for several years. He said there’s been an effort for a long
time in Congress, led by Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson, to dissolve the trade embargo with
Cuba. “There have been some modifications in the procedures, some loosening of the rules for
ob- taining licenses, but other measures have not been significantly improved,” Hobbie said.
“Lob- byists from Florida and New Jersey work very hard to keep the current legislation in
place.” Hobbie said that while this administration has been less willing to consider changes in the
law, other administrations have been unwilling to lift the ban as well. “Neither Democrat nor
Republican adminis- trations have shown a willingness to lift the ban,” he said. Rice Producers
Respond To Situation Since 2002, the U.S. Rice Producers Associa- tion (USRPA) has been to
Cuba 10 to 12 times to foster trade there. However, it has become more difficult for U.S. citizens
to get a Visa. “People have been denied since then,” said USRPA President and CEO Dwight
Roberts. Hurricane Michelle in the fall of 2001 was the spur that opened trade with Cuba in
the 21st Century. USRPA worked to get the U.S. government to allow rice shipments to aid
the people. “Our government allowed us to donate,” Roberts continued, “but the Cubans
reacted with a ‘thank you, but no thank you,’ but ‘ we’ll be happy to buy food
products from you .’ So from that the U.S. government tweaked the em- bargo and allowed the sale of food products to Cuba on a cash basis
with a list of other re- strictions. We were off and running in moving rice into Cuba.” At that time the rice sent to Cuba was milled rice, but Roberts said he’s in favor
of the sale of any type of rice to Cuba. Even Fidel Castro him- self said the country was better off buying milled rice because of a need to upgrade their mills. The
mills are located in the interior of the country so purchasing rough rice adds the cost of transport. “It’s more cost effective for them; and with rice prices today, Pedro
Alvarez (president and CEO of ALIMPORT, the government agency respon- sible for food imports to Cuba) told me recently when I was there that they paid $97 a
ton for paddy rice. That was when they first started buying rice. Today prices of paddy rice are in the neighborhood of $500 a ton.” Prices in Thailand and Vietnam on
a milled basis are around $800 a ton. When you add $140 a ton freight rate, the United States can easily compete with that plan. “They do not export paddy rice from
Asia so the Cubans have to crunch the numbers to see which is the best deal for them,” Roberts added. “I think they will continue to buy a combination of the two,
they know what their internal issues and costs are and when their harvest comes off. Maybe there are times of the year that their mills are too busy to take paddy rice,
but other times paddy rice could be a better deal for them.” Roberts said he learned in an email that Cuba bought 10,000 tons of U.S. rice for April ship- ment. “They
were looking for an additional 10,000,” he said. “They’ve just about stretched their credit in Vietnam, plus the type of rice they are getting out of Vietnam is just trash.
Cubans know rice, I mean they really know. Americans don’t even take the time to look at it but Cubans look at the color, they smell it, they know their rice and how
well it cooks. “I have spoken at the U.S. Cuban trade talks that they’ve had a time or two and we’re fixing to host our Second Annual Rice Congress of the Americas,”
Roberts said. “It’s going to be in Brazil later this month. Last year we had the first one in Cancun and we had people from 22 different countries there. Alvarez came
and spoke and we have someone that covers the main markets. It was a very good presentation and we’ve kept Cuba very much involved in the Western Hemisphere.
“When I say we educated the Cubans, we also shared our opinions on the market with the Cubans. Our thoughts on the world market- place, western hemisphere,
Asian influence and that type of thing and having them a part of this Rice Congress of The Americas has been real important because they rival Mexico as the number
Roberts and the USRPA found the people
of Cuba very friendly and eager to deal with them. “They know us and we know them well,”
Roberts said. “Our efforts are to give them a bet- ter understanding of the U.S. rice industry, how
we are structured and operate, our feelings on the western hemisphere and trade within the
region, not just with Cuba but with their neigh- bors. We spent a lot of time in an education
phase with the Cubans.” For a country of 11 million people, Cuba eats about as much rice as
Mexico. Mexico bought 800,000 tons of rice in 2007 from the United States, Cuba bought
600,000 or 700,000 tons. “Brazil some years can approach 800,000 from Uruguay and Argentina
and maybe a little bit from the United States so everyone falls off drastically after that,” Roberts
continued. “They’re one of the major importers and play- ers. Per capita consumption of rice
in Cuba is probably the highest in Latin America. Haiti would be very high. The poorer countries
have the higher per capita consumption.” Roberts thinks the visits to Cuba have created the
relationships that are necessary for trade to take place. “I believe that if we did not have an
embargo, we would immediately sell in the very first year several hundred tons more than
we’re selling now, even if the Cubans did not like us, which is totally false,” he said. “They are
as friendly a people as I have known, and buying rice from the United States is still a good
deal because of the proximity, especially in these times of high oil prices and high freights.” Cuba’s tourism
one importer of rice in the western hemisphere or close to Brazil on a shear volume basis.”
industry is growing and Roberts feels that even if the entire embargo is not lifted, travel back and forth should be
allowed. Tourists from Europe and other coun- tries regularly visit Cuba, but Americans cannot.
Ag Adv 2AC Famine Impact
Removing the embargo solves Cuban Famine
Zimmerman 10 – CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Fellow of the Center for The Study of the
Presidency and Congress, Member of The Juvenile Rights Project and the Legal Aid Society,
Barnard College, (“Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a
Broken Policy”, The Presidency – 2010 Fellows, NO DATE (Paper was written in 2010),
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, Accessed
6/27/13, AW)
Despite the U.S. government’s attempts to promote democracy in Cuba through economic
sanctions, Fidel Castro, the forme r leader of an underdeveloped nation of 11 million people,
survived eight U.S. pr esidents and their attempts to oust him from office. With the recent
resignation of Fidel Castro and the installation of his brother, 76-year-old Raul Castr o, as
president, many observers in the U.S. and Cuba relish the opportunity to develop stronger trade
ties. Although he has not signaled any major shift in Cuba’s econo mic system, in a speech given
in July of 2007, Raul Castro acknowledged that structu ral changes were necessary to
increase efficiency and the production of goods in Cuba. Castro recognizes the inherent
limitations on a country that imports more than 80 percent of its food, leaves half of its
arable land fallow, and depends on Venezuela for 90 million barrels of oil per day ( The Center
for Democracy in the Americas) . During the several years he has acted as president, Raul Castr
o has pursued reform measures to make the government more efficient and invigorate t he
Cuban economy. He has opened unused state land to private farmers, allowe d private farmers to
buy their own feed and fertilizer rather than have them assig ned by the state, permitted nationals
to buy computers, cell phones and other a ppliances that previously were prohibited, reformed the
state wage system by remov ing salary limits, and allowed Cubans to gain title to state-owned
homes (Weissert , 1). Most experts believe that Raul Castro will not undertake dramatic
economic re forms over the near term. Furthermore, due to the diversification of its econ omic
relationships with other countries, particularly China and Venezuela, Cuba i s less reliant on the
United States as a potential business partner. Cuba is recovering from a series of hurricanes
and tropical storms that hit Cuba in the fall of 2008 that by some estimates hav e caused
over $9 billion worth of damage to Cuban farms and industry. Because foo d shortages are a
serious problem in Cuba, the trade embargo with Cuba has re sulted in increased suffering
of the Cuban people. According to Peter Schwab, “t he most explosive impact of the U.S.
embargo, even worse than that on public he alth, is the effect on food and hunger” (Schwab,
79). Food rationing began in Cuba in 1962, with the distribution of one rationing booklet for
each Cuban household. Initially most food items were included in the rationing, but items such as
fruits , vegetables, and eggs have been added and deleted based on their scarcity at the ti me
(Alvarez, 1). The Cuban people have suffered from a crumbling eco nomy under Fidel
Castro’s rule, and the embargo imposed by the U.S. government has only made on attempts to
weaken the Castro regime.
AG Adv Specific Ag Exports
Removing embargo boosts soybean exports – high Cuban demand
Gegg and Larose 7 – Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica
Farmer Grower, (“Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo”,
Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year
referenced was 2007),
http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift
%20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, AW)
As a result of that, U.S. sales have in- creased. However, in 2005 some restrictions were
placed on sales to Cuba, and if those were changed U.S. food exports would increase. “This
last calendar year of 2007, we exported about $114 million in terms of soybeans, soy- bean meal
and soybean oil. It is a good market for us ,” he said. Since the restrictions were placed
on the mar- ket in 2005, soybean sales to Cuba have been about the same while soybean meal
value has gone up; however, the actual tonnage shipped has gone down. The 2005
interpretations did have a negative effect on trade with Cuba. “The treasury department’s
reinterpretation of the rules in 2005 requiring cash in advance has disrupted trade,” Censky said.
“When the legis- lation passed, the initial interpretation was to allow for the payment right before
the goods were physically delivered. The treasury reinter- preted that and now they require
payment be- fore shipment leaves the United States. That’s very highly restrictive . We don’t
have those re- quirements on any other country. The other re- striction is that no U.S. bank can be
involved in the financial transaction. We see that as a hin- drance. That increases the overall
banking costs, because U.S. exporters have to go to their bank, then their bank has to go to a third
coun- try bank which then deals with Cuba to get the payment. It just increases the price of the
trans- action by getting a third country bank in- volved.” Another restriction Censky doesn’t
think should be in place is on the use of government credit guarantees or even U.S. market
develop- ment funds. “We receive funding from both the soybean checkoff as well as from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out market devel- opment activities around the
world,” he ex- plained. “We can’t use a dime of either producers’ checkoff dollars or the
money that comes from the USDA to do any kind of market development activities in Cuba.”
There are a few other countries like that, Iran and North Korea. Yet, Cuba is a unique situa- tion.
For U.S. soybeans and soybean products the soybean association has a very high market
share in Central America and throughout the Caribbean. In fact, before the embargo was in
place, Cuba was the organization’s biggest for- eign country market in the world for
soybean meal. “We were shipping the meal, given the prox- imity from the Gulf down to Cuba to
support their livestock industry,” Censky said. “Of course, now they have gone to other
suppliers, Brazil and Venezuela. We have been able to get some of that back since 2000 and we
would like to get even more back.
Plan boosts rice exports – status quo licensing prevents trade
Gegg and Larose 7 – Betty Valle Gegg and John Larose, Members of the MidAmerica
Farmer Grower, (“Commodity Groups Exert Strong Push to Remove Cuban Embargo”,
Publication for the MidAmerica Farmer Grower Organization, NO DATE (most recent year
referenced was 2007),
http://www.mafg.net/Files/Commodity%20Groups%20Exert%20Strong%20Push%20To%20Lift
%20Cuban%20EmbargogNfhoi.pdf, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)
U.S. Grain Council Comments The U.S. Grain Council, headed by President and CEO Kenneth
Hobbie, promotes the expor- tation of corn, sorghum and barley products from the United
States, and works to help de- velop export op- portunities. This organization has been very
active in Cuba since 1997, actually traveling there before the first trading began. As an organization it’s structure is differ- ent from other commodity groups. The U.S. Grain Council has a
contract with the USDA to enhance and carry out overseas trade. However, trade with Cuba is
covered under national legislation. “The main reason trade with Cuba is curtailed is we have
a standing law currently that pre- vents any significant business relationships from
developing between the two countries,” said Hobbie. “It requires licensing to travel. We need
the permission of the Department of Com- merce to trade with them. “We are not allowed to
spend any government funding to enhance trade with Cuba, even though we are allowed to travel
there,” Hobbie said. “Our members have to pay for that them- selves.
Ag Adv EXT: Economy Internal Link
Lifting the embargo would have a massive economic impact—larger than NAFTA
Amnesty International 10 Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights.
We work to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. Currently the world’s largest grassroots human rights
organization, we investigate and expose abuses, educate and mobilize the public, and help transform societies to create a safer, more just world.
We received the Nobel Peace Prize for our life-saving work. (“Is the U.S. Embargo on Cuba a Form of Genocide?”, Amnesty International,
September 8, 2010, http://www3.sympatico.ca/danchristienses/CubaFAQ137.html , Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD)
The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food,
chemical water treatment and electricity.... The impact of economic sanctions on health and health services is not limited to difficulties in the
supply of medicine. Health and health services depend on functioning water and sanitation infrastructure, on electricity and other functioning
equipment such as X-ray facilities or refrigerators to store vaccines. The financial burden and commercial barriers have led to shortages or
intermittent availability of drugs, medicines, equipment and spare parts. It has also hindered the renovation of hospitals, clinics and care centres
for the elderly. Source: "The US embargo against Cuba: Its impact on economic and social rights," Amnesty International, September 2009 In
addition to blocking essential imports, the US embargo also continued to impose a significant drag on the development of the Cuban economy,
simply lifting the
economic and financial restrictions imposed on Cuban farmers by the US embargo would have a dramatic impact
on their production levels: Cuban agriculture has such a big potential that if it were to be totally developed it could
especially in the areas of agriculture and food production. According to at least one US agricultural expert,
surpass the volume of production of the Free Trade Treaty [the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) presumed]. William A.
Messina Jr., of the University of Florida's Agriculture Science Institute, said, that the communist
island "has such good soil and it represents a challenge of such magnitude that, with the end of
the embargo, the agricultural market impact on the continent would be larger that of the Free
Trade Treaty.'' Source: "Cuba's agriculture shows promise," Miami Herald, September 29, 2009 Follow-up, September 2010 Amnesty
International reiterates its condemnation of the US embargo: [The US embargo's is] negatively affecting Cubans’ access to medicines and
medical technologies and endangering the health of millions. United Nations agencies and programs operating in Cuba, such as UNICEF,
UNAIDS and UNFPA, have reported that the US embargo has undermined the implementation of programs aimed at improving the living
conditions of Cubans. Source: "Amnesty International criticises President Obama's decision on Cuba," Amnesty International, September 8, 2010
Follow-up, October 2010 On October 26, 2010 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly again to condemn the US embargo. Only Israel
voted with the US against the resolution. Israel trades freely with Cuba, so even this single vote cannot be seen as support for these cruel and
inhumane sanctions. On this the US is truly isolated on the world stage. The only abstentions were the tiny US-island colonies in the South
Pacific: Palau (pop. 20,000), Micronesia (pop. 110,000) and the Marshall Islands (pop. 60,000).
OFAC 2AC – Iran Adv – A2 Hurts US Companies
OFAC only targets Iranian businesses supporting prolif – protects US system
Fitzpatrick 1/16 --- Mark Fitzpatrick directs the IISS Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme,
International Institute for Strategic Studies (“US sanctions on Iran“, January 16, 2013, IISS,
www.iiss.org/~/media/Documents/.../US%20sanctions%20on%20Iran.pdf, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
Financial institutions that provide financial support for the sensitive nuclear and missile programs are also targeted. As a derivative, OFAC
can target entities that are owned or controlled by the main entities. Whereas the UN has designated only two
Iranian banks, the US blacklist includes about two dozen. The aim is to target financial institutions involved in any
way that Iran moves money to finance proliferation. The 2011 CISADA provided authority to designate any bank
that deals with designated Iranian banks. This is often said to be an extra-territorial application of US law. US officials describe it differently: if
third-country banks deal with Iran banks that are involved in proliferation, the Treasury
Department does not want US banks risking their own reputation by involved with them. In this way, the
Treasury Dept protects the US financial system from taint by association with proliferation. Only
two third-country banks, in Iraq and China, have been so designated for helping Iranian banks evade sanctions.
OFAC 2AC – Iran Adv – A2 Sanctions Fail
Sanctions effective – statistics prove – more are needed
Berman et al 13 - Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council; François Delmas,
Political Counselor for strategic affairs at the French Embassy; Michael Howells, First Secretary for Middle East
policy at the British Embassy; Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle East Affairs at the Congressional Research
Service, Orde Kittrie, Professor of Law at Arizona State University and Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies; and Michael Singh, Managing Director of the Washington Institute on Near East Policy. Mr.
Katzman participated in this discussion in his capacity as an Iran expert, and not as a representative of the
Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, or the United States Congress, (“Are Sanctions
Working?”, Report of a discussion on 10/25/12 for Iran Watch for The Wisconsin Project of Nuclear Arms Control,
2/6/13, http://www.iranwatch.org/ourpubs/bulletin/sanctions-roundtable-020613.htm, Accessed 7/10/13, AW)
A tough new U.S. sanctions measure against Iran goes into effect today, restricting foreign
governments from remitting payments for Iranian oil back to Tehran. The payments now must be kept within
the banking system of the oil-importing country and can be used by Iran only to purchase local goods. If the local
bank transfers the Iranian funds outside its national borders, it risks losing access to the U.S.
financial system—a serious threat. Limiting Tehran’s hard cash in this manner is a smart escalation in
the sanctions campaign, but will it be enough? Can any type of sanction curb Iran’s nuclear effort?
During the past year, the United States, European Union, and others have put into place the strongest
sanctions yet against Iran. Nevertheless, during this same period, Iran has expanded its uranium
enrichment program and refused to address allegations that it conducted nuclear weapon-related work. U.S.
officials say there is still time for sanctions to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear weapon power. If
so, what, specifically, can be done? The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control recently hosted a
roundtable discussion by a panel of experts * that examined sanctions as a means of influencing nuclear
decision-making by Iran’s leaders. The panelists identified three factors critical to influencing Tehran’s
nuclear ambitions: money, oil, and China. In addition, the panel raised concerns about incentivizing an Iranian
sprint toward nuclear weapons. There was broad consensus among the panelists that sanctions are
having an increasing impact on the Iranian economy. The sanctions implemented so far are causing
economic strain that will worsen over time , despite efforts by Iran to mitigate their impact. The
panelists also concluded that additional sanctions must be sought in order to hasten the unraveling of
Iran’s economy, mainly by further diminishing its foreign exchange reserve and oil revenue. The full
moderator's report of the roundtable discussion is available here. Among the panel’s specific findings were:
Sanctions limiting Iran’s oil sales are working and should be tightened . In 2012, the United States
and European Union took serious steps to restrict Iran’s ability to sell oil and other petrochemical
products. The panelists agreed that the ripple effect of these sanctions, especially since July, has resulted in
plummeting oil sales: from over two million barrels per day in 2011 to under one million barrels per day by the
end of 2012. Declining oil sales have cut access to hard currency. It is quite important, the panelists noted,
that these sanctions are still relatively new. Iran has yet to feel their full impact. The panelists found that the
U.S. and its allies should seek even further reductions in Iran’s oil sales. One possible course of action:
make waivers and exceptions to U.S. sanctions more difficult to obtain. As additional steps, the United States also
could deny government contracts to firms that continue to do business with Iran and bar vessels owned by
companies that are transporting Iranian oil from docking in the United States. China is a key player. China
currently absorbs about half of Iran’s oil exports. The time to encourage China to reduce Iranian oil
purchases is now, before Tehran works out ways to mitigate the impact of sanctions or influence the price of oil.
Similarly, additional pressure could be placed on the Chinese government to crack down on proliferation-sensitive
exports to Iran by private Chinese firms. It is nevertheless wise to tread carefully. Unity on sanctions with China
also sends a valuable message to Tehran about the cohesiveness of the P5+1 group of countries that
are leading sanctions and negotiations.
Empirics prove
Maloney 11 --- Suzanne Maloney studies Iran, the political economy of the Persian Gulf and Middle East energy
policy for the Brookings Institute and is a former U.S. State Department policy advisor (“The Self-Limiting Success
of Iran Sanctions”, November 11, 2011, Brookings Institute,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/iran-sanctions-maloney-takeyh, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
After more than three decades of reliance on sanctions as the centrepiece of US policy towards
Tehran, Washington can finally claim a measure of success, at least with respect to the breadth of
multilateral cooperation, the potency of international implementation, and apparent costs imposed on Iran as a result of its defiance of
UN mandates. The consequences of the sharpened sanctions regime can be seen across the board
within Iran. Trade with Europe has declined precipitously, and sanctions have forced Tehran to
recapitalize its banks and seek out creative mechanisms— including barter instruments—for increasing proportions of
its considerable trade finance requirements. Indian imports of Iranian gasoline have gone unpaid for months, for lack of a legally viable payment
process, while Iranian jets have been grounded in Europe as a result of US restrictions on sales of refined petroleum products.
OFAC 2AC – Iran Adv – A2 Squo Solves
Despite sanction success – more are needed
Maloney 11 --- Suzanne Maloney studies Iran, the political economy of the Persian Gulf and Middle East energy
policy for the Brookings Institute and is a former U.S. State Department policy advisor (“The Self-Limiting Success
of Iran Sanctions”, November 11, 2011, Brookings Institute,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/iran-sanctions-maloney-takeyh, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
The consequences of the sharpened sanctions regime can be seen across the board within Iran. Trade with Europe has declined precipitously, and
sanctions have forced Tehran to recapitalize its banks and seek out creative mechanisms— including barter instruments—for increasing
proportions of its considerable trade finance requirements. Indian imports of Iranian gasoline have gone unpaid for months, for lack of a legally
viable payment process, while Iranian jets have been grounded in Europe as a result of US restrictions on sales of refined petroleum products.A
wide range of Iranian politicians, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have acknowledged the
increasing hardships posed as a result of the restrictions. The argument in favour of sanctions is
grounded in the historical evidence that Iranian policy is often shaped by a rational assessment of
costs and benefits. And yet it is not apparent that the mounting costs of sanctions have brought the
clerical leadership any closer to a meaningful process of dialogue—much less serious compromises—on its
nuclear programme or the other elements of its provocative policies. This reflects the formative influence of Iran’s domestic political
dynamics, and its unexpected evolution, on the regime’s assessment of risks and rewards.
More specific sanctions needed
Maberry and Riemer 6/6 --- J. Scott Maberry is an International Trade partner in the Government Contracts,
Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, JD from Georgetown
Law, Matthew L. Riemer is an associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice
Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, JD from University of Chicago (“OFAC continues to expand the scope
of Iranian sanctions”, June 6, 2013, Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2db0d7ac-19654265-b1e5-5c43798bbca2, accessed July 10, 2013, MY)
Oil, Petrochemical, and Aircraft Industries. On May 31, the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC)
imposed sanctions on entities and individuals that are part of, or have done business with, Iran’s international
procurement and proliferation operations. The targeted entities include branches of the Iranian
government (e.g., the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Defense for Armed Forces
Logistics), several Iranian petrochemical companies, and a group of corporations and individuals in
Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates that lease or sell aircraft to Iranian companies. The sanctions were imposed
pursuant to Executive Orders 13,382 (targeting proliferators and supporters of Iran’s weapons of mass
destruction) and 13,599 (targeting the government of Iran). As we reported here, these industry-based sanctions are
further evidence of the U.S. Government’s continued commitment to hindering Iran’s attempts at
advancing its military and nuclear programs.
OFAC 2AC – Iran Adv – Multilat Ext
OFAC Iran sanctions get multilateral support
Segall 12 – Wynn H. Segall, ABA Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee Member (“Enforcement
Of U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: Corporate Governance In A New World”, 9/25/12,
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/articles/20640/enforcement-us-sanctions-against-iran-corporate-governancenew-world, accessed: 7/10/13, ckr)
Global compliance trends are generally paralleling U.S. and international Iran sanctions
enforcement. This trend is supported and, to some extent, equally driven by the fact that other
countries – including the U.S.’s closest allies in Europe and other parts of the world – have been
adopting sanctions measures against Iran in keeping with UN sanctions resolutions and other
multilateral arrangements that provide a self-sustaining legal grounding that is not simply reactive to U.S.
measures. Other countries’ sanctions enforcement officials and non-U.S. companies are now recognizing increased
restrictions under the laws of countries in which they are operating. Norms of corporate governance and best
practices for leading global companies are following these developments out of necessity. Under the Iran Sanctions
Act (ISA), administered by the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. has also increasingly pursued extraterritorial
sanctions measures against Iran that target Iran’s nuclear program, oil and gas industry, shipping and aviation
sectors, banking system and entities associated with international concerns regarding Iranian involvement in
international terrorism and weapons proliferation. While these measures have been implemented more through
diplomacy than by overt punitive actions, they appear to be increasingly effective in leveraging the threat of
intervention to cut off non-U.S. companies from access to U.S. capital, goods and technology as a means to
influence commercial decisions of companies with their center of gravity in other countries. Similar measures
have been adopted by many other countries both in keeping with progressive tightening of
multilateral sanctions resolutions and as part of coordinated diplomatic efforts.
OFAC sanctions on Iran get multilateral support
King and Spalding 10 – King and Spalding, international law firm (“OFAC Issues Iranian Financial Sanctions
Regulations”, 10/1/2010, http://www.kslaw.com/imageserver/KSPublic/library/publication/ca100110.pdf, accessed:
7/10/13, ckr)
On August 16, 2010, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC) published the
Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 561, (IFSR) that implement sections 104(c) and
104(d) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). CISADA,
signed into law by President Obama on July 1, builds upon the recently adopted United Nations Security Council
Resolution (UNSCR) 1929 and provides a foundation for new multilateral sanctions against those who
assist Iran in the development of nuclear weapons and in the support of terrorism. CISADA also
expands the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 in an attempt to limit Iran’s ability to import and produce refined petroleum
products and strengthens the U.S. President’s authority to impose sanctions on companies that provide refined
petroleum products to Iran or assist Iran in expanding its refining capacity. The IFSR prohibit (1) U.S. financial
institutions (e.g., banks, depository institutions, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, insurance
companies, etc.) from opening or maintaining a correspondent account or a payable-through account in the United
States for a foreign financial institution that knowingly engages in activities that assist Iran with weapons
proliferation or with its support of international terrorism and (2) any person owned or controlled by a U.S. financial
institution from knowingly engaging in any transaction with or benefitting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps (IRGC) or any of its agents or affiliates. Both of these prohibitions and penalties for violations are described
in more detail below
OFAC 2AC – Iran Adv – Prolif Ext
Nuclear proliferation causes extinction
Viegas 9 - Jennifer Viegas, one of Discovery New’s first reporters, has covered a great variety of topics, an author of many books [“Human
Extinction: How Could It Happen?” Discovery News, 11/11/09, http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/human-extinction-doomsday.htm,
accessed: 7/2/13, JK]
While any number and combination of doom-and-gloom happenings could destroy the human race, the researchers outlined four, more general
types of events that may also serve as "signposts," or events that may signal the unfolding of a defined scenario.
In this case, that
defined scenario is human extinction. "The types were non-war human-caused -- whether accidental or intended or purposeful,
natural-viral, natural-environmental, and finally nuclear or near nuclear war/engagement between any two nations,"
Lopes said. Should a launch of nuclear weapons, an outbreak of disease, an unforeseen side effect of technical and medical
advancements, or unusual environmental changes occur, the researchers believe "serious consideration throughout
the globe" is warranted. Side effects of technology and environmental changes "are slow to
present themselves, and that's what makes those signposts the most dangerous, in my opinion," Lopes said.
"Unfortunately, as we've seen with the impassioned discussion regarding global warming, not everyone can agree on what it is they are seeing or
what the data reveal, and that's where a great deal of danger lies."
OFAC 1AC – Narcotics Advantage
Plan boosts OFAC sanctions on Iran – reallocates resources
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way
Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed
7/02/13, AW)
Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to
fighting a Cold War -8 era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 op ed that the US spends
“extraordinary resources” each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources
to the fight against terrorism. 4 While the financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo
may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the
US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing
the embargo. For example, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which
governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions
against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea. OFAC also is responsible for
responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By
ending OFAC’s need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote those resources
to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks
OFAC key to solve narcotics – empirics prove it solves crackdown
Office of Foreign Assets Control 7, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury
(“Impact Report, Economic Sanctions Against Colombian Drug Cartels”, March 2007, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/narco_impact_report_05042007.pdf,
accessed: 7/10/13, LR)
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”)
integrates regulatory, national security,
investigative, enforcement, and intelligence elements towards a single goal: effective implemen- tation
of economic sanctions programs against foreign threats and adversaries. OFAC currently administers and
enforces more than 30 economic sanctions programs pursuant to Presidential and Congressional mandates,1
targeting select foreign countries and regimes, terrorist organiza- tions, proliferators of weapons
of mass destruction, and narcotics traffickers . OFAC acts under general Presidential wartime and national
emergency powers, as well as specific legislation, to prohibit transactions and freeze (or “block”) assets within
the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons, including their foreign branches. These programs are
administered in conjunction with diplomatic, law enforcement and occasionally military action. Since
1995, the Executive Branch has developed an array of “targeted” sanctions programs that focus on drug cartels
and traffickers, international terrorist groups, proliferators of weapons of mass destruc- tion, members of hostile
regimes, and other individuals and groups whose activities threaten U.S. interests.
Narcotics traffickers operating on a global scale require an extensive support network, includ- ing
procurement, logistics, transportation, communications, security, money laundering, and other facilitation.
Disguising the sometimes vast profits derived from major drug operations requires the purchase of ostensibly
legitimate enterprises capable of handling business on an international scale. These illicitly funded “corporate
empires” can be extensive, complex, and undermine the integrity of financial systems. They are
also one of the drug cartels’ greatest vulnerabilities.
To combat the threats of violence, corruption, and harm posed by narcotics traffickers and their
networks, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12978 in October 1995, declaring a nation- al emergency
with respect to significant foreign narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia.
The impact of these sanctions has been significant and, at times, dramatic. When OFAC desig- nates an
individual or entity, any assets within the United States or the possession or control of a U.S.
person anywhere in the world, must be frozen. Trade with or through the United States is cut off.
Moreover, many non-U.S. businesses and banks have voluntarily severed all ties with individuals and
entities that OFAC has listed. As a result, designated persons may lose access to their bank accounts outside the
United States, disrupting their operations and freedom of ac- cess. Finally, in many cases, Colombian authorities
have taken law enforcement actions against designated companies or properties after OFAC listed them.
Collectively, these actions have disrupted more than $1 billion worth of assets—in blockings, seizures, forfeitures,
and the fail- ure of enterprises—and economically isolated the individuals who own and manage the enter- prises.
The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”), in fact, stated that OFAC’s efforts
have resulted in “the forfeiture of billions of dollars worth of drug-related assets.”
Also deters narcotics – sanctions send perceptions
Office of Foreign Assets Control 7, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury
(“Impact Report, Economic Sanctions Against Colombian Drug Cartels”, March 2007, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/narco_impact_report_05042007.pdf,
accessed: 7/10/13, LR)
Economic sanctions are employed to financially and commercially impair and impede, and to ultimately
isolate and incapacitate narcotics traffickers, their supporters, and business empires. OFAC
designations help publicly identify drug traffickers and their business empires and are often
accompanied or followed by U.S. law enforcement actions and Government of Colombia asset seizures
and forfeitures. Additionally, the threat of designation often deters top manage- rial talent—needed to
operate and manage the often complex drug trafficking money launder- ing operations and business empires—from
working for the drug traffickers and their business empires. As of December 2006, OFAC has identified drug
traffickers’ assets under the Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers program valued at more than $1 billion.
Once designated, most narcotics traffickers try to evade and avoid the financial and commercial
restrictions placed upon them and their businesses, by working through others or creating shell companies through
which to control and conduct their business. Initially, sanctions impair and impede their ability to
function; however, as OFAC continues to identify and designate sup- porters, businesses, and front companies,
the drug cartel organizations face increasing isolation and incapacitation.
Narcotic trafficking undermines democracy around the globe
Sabatini 04—Christopher Sabatini, National Endowment for Democracy (“Countering the Corrosive Effects of
Narcotics Trafficking and Organized Crime on Democratic Development: How Broader Civil Society Forces Can
Help”, 2004, http://www.wmd.org/assemblies/second-assembly/reports/topical-workshops/countering-corrosiveeffects-narcotics-traffick, Accessed: 7/10/13, zs)
There are different types of illegal conduct that directly threaten democracies, and narco-trafficking is
one of them. It mostly affects democracy through blackmail, corruption, and the use of violence,
and it works against the institutions of the state, by undermining public authorities and agencies,
and also against the electoral process. Its intimidating effects gravely influence those in different sectors of
civil society, especially journalists who investigate the problem. To the degree that narco-trafficking spreads to
different countries, the growth of corruption and violence around the world threatens to debilitate
the spread and growth of democracy. Big profit margins resulting from the process of drug
production and distribution are invested in arms to meet the demands of terrorists, organized
crime, or armed groups that seek to seize power through violence.
OFAC 2AC – Narcotics – Solves Drugs Ext
Solves drug – sanctions are sufficient
Code of Federal Regulations 8 (Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives and Records
Administration, July 1, 2008, Published by the Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records
Administration,
http://books.google.com/books?id=LyV3QJvfPfUC&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq=ofac+narcotics+traffickers&sour
ce=bl&ots=tbxFMvPH56&sig=dflsUzo4skATS51eQXF2jN0NEJw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C2PdUdmZC6bj4AO4h4CA
Dg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false, accessed: 7/10/13, LR)
OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, inter- national narcotics
traffickers, and those en-gaged in activities related to the prolifera-tion of weapons of mass destruction.
OFAC‘s Reporting Procedures and Penalties Regula-tions at 31 CPR part 501 require U.S. finan-cial
institutions to block and file reports on accounts, payments, or transfers in which an OFACdesignated country, entity, or indi-vidual has any interest.‘ These reports must be filed with OFAC
within ten business days of the blocking of the property.
Prior Guidance
Transactions involving an individual or en-tity designated on OFAC's list of Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons as a global terrorist, terrorist, terrorist or-ganization, narcotics trafficking, or
narcotics kingpin may be in in furtherance of a criminal act, and therefore relevant to a possible
vio-lation of law. Thus, blocking reports related to such persons also describe potentially sus-picious activity. In
the November 2003 edi-tion of its “SAR Activity Review,” FinCEN instructed financial institutions to file suspicious activity reports on verified matches of persons designated by OFAC. While this guidance ensured that the
relevant informa-tion would be available to law enforcement, it also resulted in financial institutions being required
to make two separate filings with the Department of the Treasury – one with OFAC pursuant to its Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, and one with FinCEN pursuant to its suspicious ac-tivity reporting rules.
OFAC 1AC – NoKo Advantage
Plan boosts OFAC sanctions on North Korea – reallocates resources
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way
Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed
7/02/13, AW)
Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to
fighting a Cold War -8 era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 op ed that the US spends
“extraordinary resources” each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources
to the fight against terrorism. 4 While the financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo
may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the
US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing
the embargo. For example, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which
governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions
against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea.
North Korea Nuclear EMP kills Millions of Americans Instantly
Maloof 13- F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in
the office of the Secretary of Defense, NORTH KOREAN EMP ATTACK 'UNSTOPPABLE, WND, April 14,
2013, http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/north-korean-emp-attack-unstoppable/, Accessed July 10, 2013, KH)
If North Korea were to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the United States, it could use a
long-range missile to orbit a satellite over the South Pole, putting it in line to fly over Omaha,
Neb., and explode it at a 300-mile altitude where U.S. Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems cannot
reach, sources have told WND. In addition, these sources say, there is no way to determine whether a missile is
carrying a dummy or real nuclear warhead, obviating the need to shoot down any missile that is launched from
North Korea, given the public warning by Pyongyang that it intends to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the
U.S. The U.S. has positioned Aegis ships near North Korea and Japan, but a political decision apparently has been
made not to attempt to shoot it down if it is heading for open water. Sources say, however, that a missile to be
launched toward the U.S. would take a trajectory over the South Pole, and it is questionable whether the U.S. has
Aegis assets anywhere along the southerly path such a missile would take. In addition, the missile would need to be
shot down almost after lift-off, since the missile would launch the satellite relatively quickly into an orbit of 300
miles, which was the altitude of its satellite launch last December. North Korea, meanwhile, announced in a
statement that it has drawn the “arrows” for “merciless retaliatory strikes” at the U.S. mainland, U.S. military bases
in the Pacific and “all other bases where the U.S. imperialist aggression forces station. “The powerful strike means
of the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] have been put in their
places and the coordinates of targets put into the warheads,” a North Korean statement said. “ Just pressing the
button will be enough to turn the strongholds of the enemies into the sea of fire.” “North Korea in
December successfully orbited a satellite weighing 220 pounds – so they could deliver against
the United States, or against any nation on Earth, a small nuclear warhead,” said Dr. Peter Vincent
Pry, who served as staff director on the a commission that looked into the effects of an electromagnetic pulse, or
EMP, on the national electrical grid system and other critical U.S. infrastructures. THIS is how an EMP event could
bring the world’s remaining superpower to its knees. Read it in “A Nation Forsaken.” “A nuclear weapon
designed specifically to generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or EMP – a single such
‘super-EMP’ warhead would be able to collapse the U.S. electric grid and other critical
infrastructures, inflicting catastrophic consequences on the entire nation – would probably be
deliverable by North Korea’s so-called ‘space launch vehicle’ over the United States,” said Pry,
who also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. “North Korea orbited its satellite on a trajectory and
at an altitude ideal for making an EMP attack on the U.S.” Pry pointed out that South Korean
military intelligence has warned not only their government but also the U.S. that North Korea is
developing super-EMP warheads with Russian help. In 2011, Pry pointed out, a military commentator
with the People’s Republic of China stated that North Korea has super-EMP warheads. Data from North Korea’s
nuclear tests, he said, are consistent with a super-EMP warhead. Pry’s comments echo those of former U.S.
Ambassador Henry Cooper, in which he said that North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a
satellite, similar to satellites North Korea has previously launched southward over the South Pole. “After all,”
Cooper said in an interview with WND, “their previous satellites have been successfully placed in orbits
that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, attack on the entire continental
U.S. with a single nuclear burst.” Cooper, chairman of the board of High Frontier, which is dedicated to
warning the U.S. against a missile attack, developed the framework for President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic
Defense Initiative. He also pushed for a workable missile defense system for the U.S. and later became director of
the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization under President George W. Bush. Cooper pointed out that the
satellite carrying a nuclear warhead could be detonated at an altitude of 300 miles. With a
detonation over Omaha, he said, it would blanket the entire continental United States with EMP
effects, the consequences of which could, within a year, lead to the death of hundreds of millions
of Americans and end our way of life.” Other sources have indicated that the 220-pound satellite would be
able to carry a 300 kiloton nuclear bomb, similar to the weight of warheads on U.S. missiles and would be sufficient
to create an EMP effect from coast to coast if exploded at 300 miles above Omaha. “North Korea, Iran and everyone
else understands these points – or certainly should if they have been awake,” Cooper said. “But have they connected
the dots?” Cooper said that if the satellite with a nuclear weapon in it were to come from the southern hemisphere,
there may not be sufficient warning and tracking information to support an intercept attempt before North Korea
detonates its nuclear device over Omaha. He said North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon on a satellite, similar
to satellites North Korea has previously launched southward over the South Pole. “After all, their previous satellites
have been successfully placed in orbits that are optimum for executing an electromagnetic pulse attack on the entire
continental U.S. with a single nuclear burst,” Cooper said. “Our current defense is focused on an attack from the
north but if the attack came from the south via satellite, it might not be capable of intercepting the satellite before
North Korea detonates its device,” Cooper warned. “Moreover,” he added, “where there are disputes about whether
North Korean ballistic missiles launched in a normal ballistic trajectory have sufficient range to reach the U.S.
mainland, there can be no dispute about whether a nuclear weapon on a satellite can be detonated on orbit above the
United States – or anywhere else on the surface of the earth.”
OFAC 1AC – Terrorism Advantage
Solves sanctions on terrorism – reallocates resources – Cuba is not a threat
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way
Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed
7/02/13, AW)
OFAC also is responsible for responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and
narcotics traffickers. By ending OFAC’s need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead
devote those resources to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks.
Cuba also remains on the State Department’s state sponsor of terrorism list along with Iran, Syria,
and Sudan, despite claims by experts such as former National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism
Richard Clarke that Cuba is only on the list for domestic political reasons. 6 A 1998 report by the US
Intelligence Community determined that Cuba does not pose a threat to US national security, yet
the State Department continues to keep Cuba on the list. By normalizing relations with Cuba and
removing Cuba from the list, the State Department could better focus on actual state sponsors of
terror and instead use resources in the Western Hemisphere bureau to initiate a new path for
engaging Cuba.
OFAC 2AC – A2 Politics
Plan is popular – perceived as stopping Iran
DeLeon et al 12 - Rudy deLeon, National and International Security, John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University, Recipient of The Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Award in 1994, 1995, and 2001,
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal in 2001, Former US Senior Department of Defense Official,
Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress, With Brian Katulis, Peter
Juul, Matt Duss and Ken Sofer, (“Strengthening America’s Options on Iran”, Report for The Center for American
Progress, April 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/iran_10questions_INTRO.pdf, Accessed 7/10/13, AW)
Importantly, there is
a strong bipartisan consensus in America and within the inter national community
on this single point—an Iranian nuclear weapon would destabilize the one of the world’s most
important oil-producing regions at a critical point in the global economic recovery, would harm Israel’s
security, and would severely undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
OFAC internal link – Iran and North Korea
Responsible for sanctions on Iran and North Korea
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy
Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way
Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed
7/02/13, AW)
For example, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which governs travel and trade
between the US an d Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions against truly problematic
countries, including Iran and North Korea.
Democracy Advantage 2AC
Economic growth in Cuba leads to democracy
Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to
democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of
democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the
current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the
state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and
thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.
Lifting embargo opens way for democracy in Cuba
Griswold 05 --Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (“Four
Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, 10/12/05, Cato Institute Speeches,
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed 6/27/13 jtc)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade
and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea
have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only
deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute
confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more
likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools
of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the
flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of
democracy.¶ President
Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the
Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. “Trade
creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and those habits begin “to create the expectations of democracy
and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders
are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not
just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way to do that.”¶ The president has rightly
opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights
record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government.
China has become
our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush
understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet
he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.
And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet
Lifting the embargo would force the Cuban government to provide economic opportunity
and supplies to its people, therefore promoting democracy.
Cave 12 - Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for the New York Times who covers Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean [“Easing
of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”, New York Times, 11/19/12,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed:
7/4/13, JK]
Still, in a country where Cubans “resolve” their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common),
many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. López, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to
avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing
imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that
businesses needed, overwhelming the government’s controls while lowering prices and creating
more work apart from the state. Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo
would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the government’s
main excuses for fai
ling to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies. “Last month, someone asked me to redo
their kitchen, but I told them I couldn’t do it because I didn’t have the materials,” said Pedro José, 49, a licensed carpenter in Havana who did not
want his last name published to avoid government pressure. “Look around — Cuba
colonial building blushing with circles of faded pink paint from the 1950s. “There
is destroyed,” he added, waving a hand toward a
is a lot of work to be done.”
Lifitng the embargo solves democracy and the economy
Bandow 12 --- Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special
assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo”,
December 11, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/timeend-cuba-embargo, accessed July 4, 2013, MY)
The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should
propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions
by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.¶ Ending the embargo would have obvious economic
benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates
American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.¶ 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 contrast to China. Still, 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.Ӧ The Castro dictatorship ultimately
will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.¶ The Heritage Foundation’s
John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade
embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people. ¶
As Griswold argued,
“commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are
no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the
Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day
come sooner.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty.
Democracy Advantage Extensions
Embargo strengthens the Cuba dictatorship
Keenan 9– John Keenan, John Keenan is a freelance writer. His work has been published in the Guardian, New Statesman, Times
Literary Supplement, Literary Review and Catholic Herald, (“Cuba’s embargo must go”, theguardian, November 24 2009,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/23/embargo-cuba-human-rights, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH)
This month Europe celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the iron curtain. Tribute was paid the role the US played in helping to
speed the demise of totalitarian regimes. But just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, the
Cuban government continues to
ruthlessly suppress any sign of dissent - and the US administration's misguided embargo merely strengthens
the dictatorship's hand.¶ Now Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based NGO, has called for the US to scrap its failed
policy in favour of "more effective forms of pressure". HRW's new report, New Castro, Same Cuba, proves that Raul Castro shares his brother's
extreme distaste for opposition.¶ Since taking the reins of power from his ailing sibling in 2006, Raul
has deepened the repression
of his opponents, particularly through the vigorous use of a provision in the criminal code which
allows people to be jailed if it is suspected that they might commit a crime in the future. The catch-all
pre-criminal state of "dangerousness" is defined as any behaviour that contradicts socialist norms. HRW's report states that more than 40
people have been jailed for "dangerousness", including handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, staging rallies, and attempting to form independent trade unions.¶ HRW has called for the embargo to
be scrapped and replaced by a multi-lateral coalition comprised of the US, the EU, Canada, and Latin American to pressure Cuba to
immediately and unconditionally release its political prisoners. The coalition, HRW says, should give the Cuban government six months to meet
this demand or face sanctions, travel bans and asset freezes.¶ The report was published in a week which saw the 64-year-old Cuban dissident
Martha Beatriz Roque end her hunger strike over fears for her health. Roque and five other dissidents staged a sit-in protest 40 days ago,
complaining that government agents stole a camera from her.¶ A statement issued by the protesters explained: "The camera we want back is not
the final purpose of this protest, it is a symbol of our rights and the rights of the people, which day after day are violated by government actions."¶
And this weekend the husband of the dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez said he was attacked by government supporters as he waited to confront
state security agents accused of detaining and beating his wife two weeks ago.¶ The intimidation, persecution and incarceration of the Castro
government's opponents is ignored by those who like to believe that Cuba is a plucky little island standing up to the might of Uncle Sam. This
ignorant and patronising view allows the dictatorship to manipulate the policies of foreign governments in its favour. ¶ When
North
Korea and Burma ruthlessly extinguish any dissent they are rightly castigated as pariah states.
When Cuba does the same, the world looks away.¶ The co-called Cuban exiles in Miami and New Jersey need to drop
their noisy support for the US policy of regime change - it serves only to shore up the government they despise.¶ Anyone who cares about human
rights should encourage their governments to take up HRW's call for a new unified approach to Cuba's human rights failures. The Cuban
government will change its ways only if it is forced to.¶ Cuba ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment in 1995. It has been allowed to flout that convention with impunity.
Lifting the Embargo does not benefit the dictatorship
Taylor 13 (Steven L. Taylor, Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University.
Has a Ph.D. from The University of Texas. “More Evidence of the Silliness of US Policy
Towards Cuba”. Outside the Beltway. April 9 2013, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/moreevidence-of-the-silliness-of-us-policy-towards-cuba/, accessed: 6/27/13, EH)
A visit to Cuba by US pop singer Beyonce and her rap star husband Jay-Z is coming under scrutiny in connection with the US
economic embargo.¶ [...]¶ Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, both members of Congress from Florida, asked the US
treasury department to clarify what licence the two stars had obtained to travel to Cuba. ¶ "Cuba’s tourism industry is
wholly state-controlled; therefore, US dollars spent on Cuban tourism directly fund the
machinery of oppression that brutally represses the Cuban people," they wrote.¶ [...]¶ Americans are not allowed to
visit Cuba and spend money there unless they have special US government permission, according to guidance on the US
treasury website.¶ Granted:
However ,
it terms of the letter of the law, the Representatives have a point.
this just underscored the silliness of said law .¶ US policy towards Cuba is one remarkable mix of
counter-productiveness and pettiness.¶ Counter-productive because lifting the embargo would hasten liberalization
in Cuba (so, we are helping perpetuate the repressive government in question) and petty because the Cold War
ended over two decades ago and the Cuban Missile Crisis was half a century ago.2
Lifting the embargo now is key to creating a free-market
Goodman 13 (Joshua Goodman, Staff Writer for Bloomberg.com, “Obama Can Bend Cuba Embargo to Help Open Economy,
Groups Say”, Bloomberg.com, Feb 20 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/obama-should-bend-cuba-embargo-to-buoy-freemarkets-reports-say.html, Accessed: 6/27/13, EH)
President Barack Obama should break free of the embargo on Cuba and assert his authority to promote a free-market
overhaul taking place on the communist island.¶ The recommendation is contained in concurrent reports to be published
today by the Cuba Study Group and the Council of the Americas, two groups seeking to end a decades-old deadlock on U.S.
policy toward Cuba.¶ Among steps Obama can take without violating sanctions passed by Congress are opening U.S.
markets, as well as authorizing the sale of American goods and services, to the estimated 400,000 private entrepreneurs
that have arisen since Cuban President Raul Castro started cutting state payrolls in 2011. The reports also recommend allowing
U.S. credit card and insurance companies to provide basic financial services to licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba. ¶ “We’ve been
sitting on the sidelines with our hands tied by an antiquated law that’s being too strictly interpreted ,” said Chris
Sabatini, an author of the report and senior policy director for the Council of the Americas, a business-backed group based in
New York. “There’s more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful economic change .”¶ Obama in 2009
allowed companies for the first time to provide communications services to the Caribbean island of 11 million and lifted a travel
ban for Cuban-Americans. The loosening of restrictions, while heralded by the White House as a way to undermine the Castro
government’s control of information, was seen as insufficient by potential investors including Verizon Communications Inc. and
AT&T Inc.¶ Economic Overhaul¶ Now, in a second term, and with private business expanding in Cuba, Obama has a freer hand to
do more, said Sabatini. An exception to the embargo allowing U.S. businesses and consumers to trade with non-state enterprises
in Cuba would be small in scale though help empower a growing, viable constituency for change on the island, he said.¶ Since his
brother Fidel started handing over power in 2006, Castro has relaxed state control of the economy in the biggest
economic overhaul since the 1959 revolution. To
provide jobs for the 1 million state workers being laid off,
the government began allowing the buying and selling of homes and the creation of farming cooperatives and other private businesses. The latest sign of change are new rules that took effect
in January allowing most Cubans to bypass requirements they obtain an exit visa or invitation
from abroad to leave the island.¶ Castro in December said that he hopes that productivity gains will boost economic
growth this year to at least 3.7 percent. Gross domestic product expanded 3.1 percent in 2012.¶ Repeal Legislation¶ The
Washington-based Cuba Study Group urges Obama to gain even more leverage by getting Congress to repeal the so-called
Helms-Burton act of 1996 and other legislation that conditions the easing of sanctions on regime change.
Lifting embargo solves – trade is key
Lloyd 11— Delia Lloyd, Contributor for Politics Daily and Former Political Science professor at the University of Chicago (“Ten
Reasons to Lift the Cuban Embargo”, Politics Daily, 2011[no month/day given], http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-liftthe-cuba-embargo/?icid=main|aim|dl8|sec1_lnk3|166115, Accessed: 6/28/13, EH)
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
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
to do something about human rights.
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 non-governmental 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.
Doesn’t link to pink tide and Lifting the embargo leads to democratization of Cuba
Griswold 09 – Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies (“The US embargo of Cuba is a
Failure”, theguardian, June 15 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama,
Accessed: 7/2/13, EH)
After nearly 50 years, America's cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration
relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba's reentry to the Organisation of American States.¶ Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation's charter that requires its
members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue.¶ The
embargo has
been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not
liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more
impoverished, without making them one bit more free . At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to
travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. ¶ As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually
enhances the Castro government's standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel
and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has
been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. ¶ In 2000, Congress approved a
modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products
and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have
increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last,
Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million
people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil.¶ According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would
increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies.
Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise
exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. ¶ USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba
from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm
exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a
year.¶ Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro
regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and
tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of
those same dollars.¶ If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised,
the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect,
the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade relationship.¶
Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique USCuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten
the decline of the communist regime.¶ Congress
and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the
embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to,
trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day
when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
Embargo fails, lifting it is moral and defeats Cuban communism
Kirkland 13 – Rhiannon M. Kirkland, Intern at the Washington Monthly (“Against the
Pointless and Execrable Cuba Embargo”, Washington monthly, April 15 2013,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/04/against_the_pointless_and_exec044130.php ,
Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
Jay-Z and Beyonce went to Cuba for their fifth wedding anniversary, causing a huge kerfuffle over whether or not they went there legally. Marco
Rubio and others question how “educational” their trip really was, and why the Treasury Department might authorize such a trip. This is dumb.
What difference does it make if music royalty—or anyone else for that matter—visit Cuba and why is the embargo still going on?
The policy is ineffective, after all—the Castros are still in power all these years later. Add to this the moral implications of
systematically impoverishing a nation because they happen to have a leader you disagree with.
The embargo became permanent on Feb. 7, 1962 and has existed in one form or another since then. In the past twenty years it has been strengthened and relaxed
depending on the prevailing political tides. In 1992 and 1996 it was extended to countries that traded with Cuba in retaliation for the downing of two American
civilian aircrafts by Cuba. In 2001 it was loosened to allow the sale of food to Cuba following Hurricane Michelle, a measure that remains in place and has build up a
trading relationship worth $710 million by 2008.
Otherwise restrictions were tightened under George Bush. Remittance allowances were decimated from $3,000 to $300, and family members were only allowed to
visit for a maximum of two weeks every three years. President Obama has relaxed things somewhat by returning to the pre-Bush status quo. Now Americans can send
remittances to non-family members and can visit for educational or religious purposes.
In the time since Raul Castro replaced his more radical brother in 2008 he has undertaken over numerous reforms in areas including property rights, economics and
travel. There are still human rights abuses including the holding of dissidents and journalist, but some forward progress is being made.
Historical warming that took place between in Vietnam-US relations and Sino-American relations provide good examples of how warming between the US and Cuba
might unfold, and would be far more effective than the current policy.
Vietnam and the U.S. had a gruesome relationship in the Cold War; despite these differences relations were normalized in 1995 and a trade deal was signed in 2000.
Trade in 2012 totaled between $22-24 billion.
Beijing and Washington spent the early years of the cold war at odds before a warming of relations that paved the way for today’s relatively warm ties. President
Richard Nixon’s visit in 1972 brought the Shanghai Communique, which was effectively “an agree to disagree” policy, and the start of the normalization of relations.
Trade between the US and China went from $5 billion in 1980 to $536.2 billion in 2012. Imagine how different the world would be—especially for the average
Chinese person—if Sino-American relations were still almost non-existent?
Most other countries don’t have their own Cuba embargoes, with tourism from the EU and Canada providing about $2.7 billion in revenue. There is no point in
The US will truly have won the battle against
communism when Starbucks and McDonalds franchises line the streets of Havana the way they do Beijing. Ending the
embargo is the first step.
But fundamentally, no matter what other benefits there might be, it is morally sick to continue collectively punishing the Cuban
people for such long-passed disputes. It’s long since time they fully joined the community of nations
resisting anymore, and standing alone in the world for an old project that has failed.
Removing embargo impetus to democracy
Huddelston 08—Vicki Huddelston, former State Department official, Brookings Institution expert on Latin
America and Africa, and is the current Chief of the American Interests section in Cuba (“Cuba's Road to
Democracy?”, CBN News, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2008/March/Cubas-Road-to-Democracy-/,
Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)
Brookings Institute's Huddleston disagrees.¶ ¶ "The
more you open up, the more you'll unbalance the regime," she
U.S, should first end the travel and communication embargo. Allowing
Americans to visit Cuba would promote the exchange of information and speed the spread of
democratic ideals.¶ ¶ "Anything that empowers the Cuban people. We're talking about building up democracy, so
we want freedom of information, free flow of money, remittances to the Cuban people," Huddleston
said. She instead says the
said.
Cuba heading towards reform—US needs to help, link to democracy
Cave 12—Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for The New York Times in Mexico City, finalists for the 2008
Pulitzer Prize in international reporting (“Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo”, The New
York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easingembargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&, 11/19/12, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
Even as defenders of the embargo warn against providing the Cuban government with “economic lifelines,” some
Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama administration already showed an
openness to engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for
Cuban Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Raúl Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is
divided on the pace and scope of change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and
update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans seeking more economic
independence from the government.¶ “Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it
does is strengthen and embolden the hard-liners,” said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and cochairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates engagement with Cuba. “What we should
be doing is helping the reformers.”
Embargo leads to military conflict—prevents democracy
Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
The current
policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict
may be inevitable in the future if the embargo’s explicit goal — creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the
government — is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, “Americans are not prepared
to commit the military resources […]” (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like America’s current
situation with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cuba’s isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the American
occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These
consequences are inherently counterproductive for the
democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human rights.
Tourism promotes democracy in Cuba
Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the
Congressional Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”,
March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013,
MY)
The first people-to-people trips began in August 2011. In May 2012, the Treasury Department
tightened its restrictions on people-to-people travel by making changes to its license guidelines.
The revised guidelines require an organization applying for a people-to-people license to
describe how the travel “would enhance contact with the Cuban people, and/or support civil
society in Cuba, and/or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities.” The
revised guidelines also require specification on how meetings with prohibited officials of the Cuban government would advance purposeful travel
by enhancing contact with the Cuban people, supporting civil society, or promoting independence from Cuban authorities. Major
arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban altogether are that it abridges the rights of
ordinary Americans to travel; it hinders efforts to influence conditions in Cuba and may be
aiding Castro by helping restrict the flow of information; and Americans can travel to other
countries with communist or authoritarian governments. Major arguments in opposition to lifting the Cuba travel ban
are that more American travel would support Castro’s rule by providing his government with potentially millions of dollars in hard currency; that
there are legal provisions allowing travel to Cuba for humanitarian purposes that are used by thousands of Americans each year; and that the
President should be free to restrict travel for foreign policy reasons.
And it’s the most pragmatic approach
Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the
Congressional Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”,
March 29, 2013, FAS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed June 28, 2013,
MY)
In light of Fidel Castro’s departure as head of government and the gradual economic changes
being made by Raúl Castro, some observers called for a reexamination of U.S. policy toward
Cuba. In this new context, two broad policy approaches have been advanced to contend with
change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that maintains the U.S. dual-track policy of isolating the
Cuban government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at
influencing the attitudes of the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact
and engagement.¶ In general, those who advocate easing U.S. sanctions on Cuba make several policy
arguments. They assert that if the United States moderated its policy toward Cuba—through
increased travel, trade, and dialogue—then the seeds of reform would be planted, which would
stimulate forces for peaceful change on the island. They stress the importance to the United States of
avoiding violent change in Cuba, with the prospect of a mass exodus to the United States. They argue that since
the demise of Cuba’s communist government does not appear imminent, even without Fidel
Castro at the helm, the United States should espouse a more pragmatic approach in trying to
bring about change in Cuba. Supporters of changing policy also point to broad international support
for lifting the U.S. embargo, to the missed opportunities for U.S. businesses because of the
unilateral nature of the embargo, and to the increased suffering of the Cuban people because of
the embargo. Proponents of change also argue that the United States should be consistent in its policies with the
world’s few remaining communist governments, including China and Vietnam.
Sanctions are a double standard and free trade promotes democracy
Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy
Studies (“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, October 12, 2005,
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba,
accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North
Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened
the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and
globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies
where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of
communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine
oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a
larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.¶ President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and
democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about
more than raising incomes. “Trade
creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and those habits begin “to
create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies
that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And
for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity—trade is
a good way to do that.Ӧ The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human
rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban
government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet China has
become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands
that economic
engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and
political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.¶ In
fact, the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine America’s national interest today than either Cuba or China.
Chavez shares Castro’s hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to spread his influence in the
hemisphere. Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other
countries in our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuela’s state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan
investments in our own energy sector, and Americans—last time I checked—can travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between
Venezuela and Cuba is that we don’t have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio. ¶ This is not an
argument for an embargo against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly
and oppressive regimes, there
is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a
total embargo.
The embargo has strengthened Castro’s ideological position and has prevented
democratization in Cuba.
Amash 12 - Brandon Amash, writer for the Prospect Journal of International Affairs at the University of California at San Diego
[“Evaluating the Cuban Embargo”, Prospect Journal, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed:
7/4/13, JK]
American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castro’s ideological position and created
opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of
democratization and improvement in human rights.Cuba’s revolution could not have come at a worse time for America.
The emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the United States’
rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo
also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on the
embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 – 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of
democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country
unachievable (Fontaine 30).
Only engaging in economic activity with Cuba will lead to democratization in Cuba.
Dodd No Date - Christopher J. Dodd, US Senator of Connecticut [“Should the U.S End its Cuba Embargo?” Scholastic,
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/should-us-end-its-cuba-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]
The United States is the only nation that still has a trade embargo against Cuba. After four decades,
it's clear that our policy has failed to achieve its goals: the end of Fidel Castro's regime and a
peaceful transition to democracy. Today, Cuba remains under totalitarian rule, with Castro still firmly in
power. The real victims of our policies are the 11 million innocent Cuban men, women, and children. Our
embargo has exacerbated already-miserable living conditions for Cuban citizens. Cuba's economy has suffered because it is prohibited from
exporting goods to the U.S. In addition, most Cubans have very limited access to American products. Moreover, our policies restrict Americans'
right to travel freely to Cuba, making exchange between our two cultures essentially impossible. There
are many other countries
whose governments are not freely elected. Yet none of our policies toward these nations
resemble our treatment of Cuba. With the Cold War over and Cuba posing no threat to the U.S.. there is no justification for our
outdated approach to Cuba. To make matters worse, we are spending extraordinary resources to enforce the embargo resources that could be used
to secure our nation against terrorism. It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy. We
can start by ending the trade
embargo and by lifting the ban on travel to Cuba by American citizens. Only by engaging the
Cuban people, and by building bridges between our citizens and theirs, will we succeed in
bringing freedom and democracy to our neighbor.
Embargo does not encourage democracy or human rights.
Lewis 13 Bill Lewis, Digital Journalist based in Washington, DC, United States, United States. Joined on Sep 23, 2012
Expertise in Personal finance, Books, Politics, Automotive, Internet (“Op-Ed: Why the United States should end its embargo on Cuba,”
Digital Journal, April 17, 2013, http://digitaljournal.com/article/348218, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
For over 50 years the United States has held firm on its embargo against Cuba, even as the world condemned it for doing so. It is now
time that the United States accept that the embargo has failed and move on.
When Fidel Castro came to power in 1959 and installed an authoritarian communist regime aligned with the Soviet Union, the United
States began applying diplomatic and economic pressure to the small island nation 90 miles off of the Florida coast. After the Cuban
Missile Crisis President John F. Kennedy took the pressure a step further by imposing a full trade embargo and urging US allies to do
the same. At the time, the embargo seemed the logical thing to do in order to pressure Castro to make political reforms and to stop what
many saw as an inevitable spread of communism during the height of the Cold War. Over 50 years later, however, many have begun to
question the efficacy of the embargo and believe the time has come to end it.
Before going over the many reasons why the United States should end the embargo on Cuba it is important to understand the goal of the
embargo – both past and present. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that the embargo was initially placed on Cuba in an attempt to
pressure Havana into making democratic reforms and aligning itself with the United States, as opposed to the Soviet Union which it had
allied with. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis fears of Cuba being used as a forward base for the Soviet Union to threaten the
United States and to spread communism in the region seemed to be fully realized – with some validity – and it seemed prudent for the
United States and its allies to squash any possible threat that Cuba might represent. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the
reason
given for the continuation of the embargo has been twofold according to the Washington Times; a
continued desire to put pressure on Havana to make democratic reforms and end human rights
violations, and Cuba’s continued status as a supporter of terror organizations. Let us then review each of these in order to determine
if the embargo has been effective and if its continuation is justified.
The first reason given for the continued embargo on Cuba is that it is the only way for the United States to put pressure on Havana to
end human rights violations and make democratic reforms. Proponents further state that we have a moral responsibility to show our
support for Cuban citizens through the embargo. While this seems to make sense on face value this argument falls apart under close
scrutiny. To begin with, the embargo is not supported or enforced by the majority of the world. In fact, according to Brett Wilkins of the
Digital Journal, “Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau (population 20,000)” were the only other nations to have voted against
a resolution in the UN calling for an end to the embargo in 2012 (the 21st such annual resolution). This simple fact alone means that
whatever effect we might hope the embargo would have toward pressuring Havana disappears. Cuba’s largest industry – tourism – is
booming due to European and Canadian travelers who flock to the islands many beaches. Additionally, trade with countries like
Venezuela ensure a steady supply of oil and the European Union has begun working on closer trade ties with Cuba. Even U.S. companies
find it easy to circumvent the embargo by routing the trades through foreign branches. It cannot be denied, however, that Cuba’s
economy has been affected by the embargo – even if not to the point that we would hope. In fact, Havana reports that they have lost more
than a trillion dollars since the implementation of the embargo. The issue is, however, that even if the embargo had been fully enforced
and crippling to the Cuban economy it would likely have failed because trade sanctions and embargoes are notoriously ineffectual at
causing reform.
The sad reality is that the first people to be hurt by any embargo are the innocent civilians; the very
people who we are purportedly trying to help by forcing reforms. When a country such as Cuba begins to feel the effect
of an embargo they do not cut amenities for the leader or military readiness – though Cuba did cut its military
slightly when the embargoes were first put in place it was never truly a military threat and it’s military was never a concern; a look at
nations like North Korea whose military is at the core of concerns is an indicator of the effect of sanctions on a country's military.
Instead they slash programs that improve the lives of their citizens. Worse, they then blame the
United States for causing all of their economic woes; thus relieving them of the need to show
action toward improving the situation. Therefore, rather than weakening Castro’s government
through the sanctions as we had hoped, we in fact strengthen it by allowing it to use the United States as a
scapegoat. It is for this reason that human rights groups have actually called for an end to the embargo pointing to the hardship it causes
the Cuban people without any real effect on the control the government has over them.
As for the moral responsibility that we have to stand with the citizens of Cuba against an oppressive regime, to put it simply, what a
bunch of hogwash. If we really want to stand with the citizens of Cuba, then rather than imposing an embargo that has hurt the people
while strengthening the government we should take the same stance we did with the Marshal Plan which was used in post World War II
Europe. Faced with the same potential problem – the potential spread of communism – we poured millions of dollars of aid and trade
into European nations to help them rebuild and get their economies strong again. We used the same tactic in South Korea and several
other countries since; and it has continued to work gloriously. While the issue has changed since the fall of the USSR the solution
remains the same. By allowing trade with Cuba and ensuring that the people gain access to the many great things that capitalism and
democracy allow we give the best chance that the people will call for reforms. It won’t happen overnight and it won’t be easy; however, it
will surely be more effective than an embargo that has been in place for over 50 years with no success whatsoever. Furthermore, given
that Raul Castro has already begun making some reforms – albeit small ones – the time seems ripe for the US to make a move.
The final argument given for continuing the embargo is the fact that Cuba remains on the United State's list as a state sponsor of
terrorist organizations for their supposed support of groups like FARC and the ELN. There are, however, a few issues with this line of
thought. First of all, as the Council on Foreign Relations indicates many experts state that there is no proof that Cuba has supported
these organizations. Second, while the United States labels these organizations terrorist groups others call them freedom fighters and
would point out that the government they are fighting against – Columbia – is incredibly corrupt and has been accused of supporting
drug cartels. In the end, however, both of these points are moot because of the third; which happens to be the same argument made
above. If in fact Cuba is supporting these groups, and if in fact these groups are terrorist organizations our embargo against Cuba does
nothing to stop them from supporting these groups and in fact may even prevent reforms that would lead to them ending any support
currently given.
There are two more important reasons that we should end the embargo against Cuba. First, as I mentioned earlier in this article the
United States stands alone – outside of the support of Israel and Palau – in enforcing this embargo; but more importantly we
stand
alone in seeing any justification for it. When we first began the embargo many nations stood with us because of the Cold
War and the threat from the Soviet Union, however, since the fall of the USSR it has become a black eye for the United States. Rather
than looking like a nation protecting its national interest – as is the right of any nation – the United States looks like a larger nation
bullying a smaller neighbor because it doesn’t like their politics and the US has in fact been condemned by the UN for doing so. While
this has yet to cause us any serious issues it does detract from the United States' international image which is an important part of any
diplomatic effort they undertake.
Second, is the extreme cost of continuing the embargo. According to the CATO Institute the, “U.S. International Trade Commission
estimates American losses alone from the embargo [are] as much as $1.2 billion annually.” Further, Forbes reports that “according to
the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours
to administering the embargo each year” further increasing the cost. That’s a lot of money to be throwing at a policy that isn’t actually
working.
No one will argue that reforms don’t need to take place in Cuba, however, the method we are choosing to use is not only ineffectual but
actually hurts those we are trying to help. It is high time that we recognize the embargo for what it is – failed policy – and move on.
Lifting Embargo key to democracy and human rights.
Perez 10 Louis A. Perez Jr., Louis A. Pérez, Jr., Ph.D.¶ Louis A. Pérez Jr. is the J. Carlyle Sitterson Professor of History in the College of
Arts and Sciences. His principal teaching fields include twentieth-century Latin America, the Caribbean, and Cuba. Professor Pérez has written
and edited fifteen books, and his articles have appeared in the principal journals of the profession. (“Want Change in Cuba? End U.S. Embargo”,
CNN, September 21, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD)¶ CNN) -- In
April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests of
the United States."¶ Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National
Foundation in Miami.¶ The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote
respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national
interests."¶ Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy
of political and economic isolation of Cuba.¶ The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible.¶ On
the contrary, it
has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50
years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people.¶ This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to
impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their
government.¶ "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is
through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship."¶ The United States tightened the screws in the postSoviet years with the
Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to
wreak havoc on that island."¶ The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing
scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort. ¶ And therein lies the
problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today.
Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo
keeps them down and distracted.¶ Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the
benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir
themselves in behalf of anything else.¶ In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time
and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or waiting for public transportation.¶ Cubans in vast numbers choose
to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit suicide.
(Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4
per 100,000 people.)¶ A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political
freedom as the island's main problem. As one
Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities,
later democracy."¶ The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming
ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.¶ Ending the
embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to enact
needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair. ¶ A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover,
would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban
leaders the chance to
use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy
and human rights.¶ And it would serve the national interest.
The embargo hurts US soft power
Franks 12- James Franks, VP of franchising and reporter at Reuters,( Cuba says ending U.S. embargo would help
both countries, Reuters.com, September 20, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargoidUSBRE88J15G20120920, Accessed: July 3, 2013, KH)
The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has violated
the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S. companies, Foreign
Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters.
"The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential
obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo.
"The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban child,"
Rodriguez said.
He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United
Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month.
Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo,
Rodriguez said.
Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that it would
also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights."
That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government
permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said.
"The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez said.
Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any
destination.
Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish U.S. economy.
"In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new market of
11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American companies cannot
compete in Cuba," he said.
Obama, who said early in his presidency that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has been a
disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the embargo.
He has lifted some restrictions on travel and all on the sending of remittances to the island, but Rodriguez said he
has broadened the embargo and its enforcement in other areas.
Fines against U.S. and foreign companies and individuals who have violated the embargo have climbed from $89
million in 2011 to $622 million so far this year, he said.
U.S.-Cuba relations thawed briefly under Obama, but progress came to a halt when Cuba arrested U.S. contractor
Alan Gross in Havana in December 2009.
Gross was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison for setting up Internet networks in Cuba under a
controversial U.S. program that Cuba views as subversive.
Rodriguez dodged questions about how U.S. policy toward Cuba might change if Obama is re-elected in November
or if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but said whoever is in office will have a chance to
make history.
"Any American president would have the opportunity to make a historic change," he said. "He would go into history
as the man who rectified a policy that has failed."
Embargo does not promote democracy --- decades of failure disprove.
Bandow, 2012. Doug Bandow, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant
to former US president Ronald Reagan. (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” National Interest,
12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo. Accessed:
July 4, 2013, KH)
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the
embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America . Observed Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see
normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in
Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping
the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners .”
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions . A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I
met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz , who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the
“sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.”
Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international
reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure
authoritarian windbag.
Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments . In 1994, John Sweeney
of the Heritage Foundation declared that “the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S.
government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over
three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly.” The latter’s collapse, he
wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before.
Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
retains faith in the embargo : “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be
strengthened, and not be altered.” One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing
while expecting to achieve different results .
Lifting embargo would empower democratic groups
Bandow 12,. Doug Bandow, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
former US president Ronald Reagan. (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” National Interest,
12/11/2012, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo. Accessed
July 4, 2013, KH)
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans . The U.S.
International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion
annually.
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 contrast to China. Still, 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 .”
The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human
hardship along the way.
The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not
abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead
hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As
Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad .” Of
course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than
continuing a policy which has failed . Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with
Americans likely would make that day come sooner.
Ending the Cuban embargo allows travel and ag trade—key to democracy and
economic growth
Griswold 09- Daniel Griswold, is the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C (6/15/09, “The US embargo of Cuba is a failure”, Cato, Accessed 6/27/13,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)
Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for
democracy and the economy After nearly 50 years, America’s cold war embargo against Cuba
appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and
remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba’s reentry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the
organisation’s charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US
economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not
changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the
embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit
more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and
other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. “ Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to
lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.” As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo
actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island’s
Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on
Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to
give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of
the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm
products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales
of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are
corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America
for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba
than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports
would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be
interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market
driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither
should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba
from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of
their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm
exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo
argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it’s true that the
government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist
dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of
those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US
exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro
regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products
for tourism services, a kind of “bread for beaches”, “food for fun” trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in
Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique USCuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and
potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should
act
now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom
to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the
Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
Trade helps promote democracy – empirics prove
Lloyd 11 – Delia Lloyd, writer featured in New York Time and Politics Daily (“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo”, “Politics Daily”, Year = 2011 (no date specified), http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasonsto-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr)
1. It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be a huge
boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans
visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand.
Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009
study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel restrictions on U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13 million to
between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between 18
and 42 percent.
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 non-governmental 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.
Embargo prevents change to democracy in Cuba
Caribbean News 12 – (“Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?”, Caribbean News Now!,
12/22/12, http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Should-the-United-States-maintain-its-embargo-againstCuba%3F-13864.html, accessed: 6/28/13, ckr)
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has
clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and
prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts
international opinion of the United States.
In addition to in-depth research on the pros and cons of maintaining the Cuba embargo, the new ProCon.org website
contains a historical background section, videos, images, over 60 footnotes and sources, and Did You Know? facts
including:
1. President John F. Kennedy sent his press secretary to buy 1,200 Cuban cigars the night before he signed the
embargo in February 1962.
2. Estimates place the cost of the Cuban embargo to the US economy between $1.2 and $4.84
billion annually. A 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that 6,000 American jobs could be
created by lifting the embargo.
3. There are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 political prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012,
which is among the world's highest on a per capita basis.
4. The United Nations has denounced the US embargo against Cuba for 21 straight years. The vote against the
embargo was 188-3 in 2012, with only Israel and Palau supporting the United States.
5. The United States began exporting food to Cuba following a devastating hurricane in 2001 and is now the island's
second-largest food supplier. Annual food sales to Cuba peaked at $710 million in 2008.
Embargo thwarts democracy – engagement required to solve
Tucker 4/14 – Cynthia Tucker, American columnist and blogger for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, syndicated
by Universal Press Syndicate, Pulitzer Prize for commentary (“Cuban Embargo Has Far Outlived Its Usefulness”,
The National Memo, April 13th, 2013, http://www.nationalmemo.com/cuban-embargo-has-far-outlived-itsusefulness/?author_name=cynthiatucker, accessed: 7/2/13, ckr)
That just goes to show you that Fidel Castro’s
efforts to wall off the island nation from his powerful
enemy to the north have failed miserably. He and his brother have perfected the dark arts of the dictatorship
— jailing dissidents, stifling protest, controlling internal news media, severely restricting travel abroad — but the
lights of the outside world shine brightly through the cracks.
Castro’s long-running tyranny has not managed the thoroughgoing isolation of, say, North Korea, where citizens
have little realistic knowledge of the rest of the world.
Still, Castro has his accomplices here in the United States — fanatics who would help him wall off
Cuba, restrict the access its citizens have to American culture and generally thwart a hoped-for
transition from dictatorship to democracy. Bizarrely, those accomplices consider themselves Castro’s
biggest enemies. They have dedicated themselves to his demise.
Indeed, if you know about the recent trip to Cuba by America’s First Couple of Pop, you probably heard about it
through the controversy ginned up by a handful of Florida Republicans: Sen. Marco Rubio and U.S. Reps. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. Without waiting to investigate the trip, Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart,
especially, began complaining that it was likely a violation of the antediluvian U.S. embargo.
As it turns out, Beyoncé and Jay-Z entered Cuba legally. They went as part of a cultural and educational exchange
arranged under the auspices of a group called Academic Arrangements Abroad and approved by the U.S. Treasury
Department, according to Reuters. But the Florida pols didn’t want facts; they wanted to embarrass President Obama
by implicating two high-profile political supporters in something nefarious.
It’s the anti-Castro faction who should be embarrassed. The Cuban embargo is dumb, one of the most
antiquated and least sensible federal laws remaining on the books. Enacted in the early 1960s, it is a
remnant of a different time — an era of bobby socks, segregation and a serious threat emanating
from the Soviet Union.
The Cuban embargo makes no more sense today than laws requiring white and “colored” water fountains. It is kept
alive by a handful of powerful politicians of Cuban heritage, who cling to their parents’ and grandparents’ bitterness
toward Castro. Many members of Cuba’s affluent classes fled the island after Castro’s 1959 revolution, when he
began nationalizing private industries and strengthening ties with the Soviets.
His long-running dictatorship has been an economic disaster and a catastrophe for civil liberties.
But with the Soviets long gone, Castro represents absolutely no threat to the United States.
Further, the most promising avenue for changing Cuba lies in courting it, not cutting it off.
When Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, ending a 25-year breach, he did so with a similar notion in mind.
China remains a Communist country. It has a totalitarian government; it restricts human rights;
as a nuclear power with a huge military, it could pose a threat to the United States and its allies.
Yet, no reasonable politician suggests that the U.S. government should restrict travel or
commerce with China. For decades, our government has believed the best way to change China
is through engagement.
Using that standard, President Bill Clinton sought to weaken the Cuban embargo during his term by
encouraging educational and cultural exchanges. Though President George W. Bush stopped them, Obama
has revived the trips. While the sensible policy would be to end the embargo, the cultural exchanges are at
least a step in the right direction.
Embargo bad – helps Castro and hurts Cuban people
Karon 10 – Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME (“Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?”, TIME,
4/21/10, http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html, 7/2/13, ckr)
It actually helps keep Castro in power
Never mind the fact that it's failed to dislodge him after 38 years, the
embargo is now Castro's catchall
excuse for every ill that plagues his decaying socialist society. It helps him paint the U.S. as
hostile and an imminent threat in the eyes of the Cuban people, which is how he rationalizes his
authoritarian politics. Opening the floodgates of trade will leave Castro with no excuses, and
interaction with the U.S. will hasten the collapse of his archaic system.
What's good for China is good for Cuba
China is a lot more repressive than Cuba, and yet we've normalized trade relations with Beijing
on the argument that trade will hasten reform and democratization. We're even lifting sanctions against
North Korea despite the fact that their missile program is supposedly a threat to our skies, whereas the Pentagon
has long since concluded that Cuba represents no threat to U.S. security. It's nonsensical to argue that
trade induces better behavior from communist regimes in China and North Korea, but will do the opposite in Cuba.
It mostly hurts the people it's supposed to help
You can be sure Fidel Castro isn't going to bed hungry and or suffering through a headache because
there's no Tylenol to be had. Yet millions of his people are suffering all manner of deprivations
that the could be eased by lifting an embargo that's never going to overthrow him anyway.
Stopping Cubans from benefiting from trade with the U.S. and interaction with American tourists
leaves Castro unscathed, but it deprives the Cuban people of a taste of freedom that could only
undermine a repressive regime.
Embargo helps Castro Regime – US politicians too scared to oppose
Stern 12 – Scott Stern, Branford College at Yale (“Lift the Cuba embargo”, Yale Daily News, 2/10/12,
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, ckr)
The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans’ access to good food, modern
technology and useful medicine. It has also hurt the United States’ relationships with other
countries — the European Parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to
comply with certain parts of the embargo. The purpose of the embargo was undeniably to make life so
difficult for Cubans that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The United States
government has maintained — for 50 years — that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human
rights and liberty.
There is a pretty serious problem with this plan: It hasn’t worked. Beyond the fact that Castro is still in
power and Cuba is still not a democracy, the embargo has not truly succeeded in sewing
resentment into the hearts and minds of the Cuban people. The embargo allows Castro to make
the United States and the embargo the scapegoats for all of Cuba’s ills. It also forces Cuba to rely
on countries like the former USSR, China and Venezuela for trade. The appalling hypocrisy of the
embargo is that the United States nearly always maintained diplomatic and economic relationships with countries
like Russia, China and Vietnam even during the heart of the Cold War.
Numerous influential people have come out against the Cuban embargo, including Pope John Paul II, Jesse Jackson
and George Schultz. They all claim that the embargo hurts the Cuban people, not the Cuban government.
Democratic politicians Gary Hart, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter have also expressed this view. It is
interesting to note, however, that Hart and McGovern only became vocal enemies of the embargo long after their
presidential runs. Politicians are scared openly to oppose the embargo.
The Cuban-American population is an exceptionally powerful and vocal voting bloc, and many CubanAmericans support the embargo out of sheer hatred of Castro. These Cuban exiles — whose
votes are so important, particularly in Florida — have pushed nearly every major politician away
from normalizing relations with Cuba. As Hart wrote on his blog last year -— years after leaving politics, of
course — the embargo is “a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded inordinate political
power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature diplomacy.”
It would be highly inaccurate, however, to foist the blame for the embargo’s persistence upon the Cuban-American
population. American politicians across the political spectrum are to blame for their intransigence
and their unwillingness to challenge the status quo. The embargo is not a major political issue, so
politicians are just too apathetic to engage with it.
Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba – gives Castro more power
Henderson 08 – David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and is also
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (“End the Cuban
Embargo”, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.
By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer
than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism.
Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro.
There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's
profoundly immoral.
It could succeed only by making average Cubans – already living in grinding poverty – even
poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And
consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Proembargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba. Yet their solution –
prohibiting trade with Americans – is the very essence of socialism.
The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the
target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a
hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada,
produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba,
and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and
President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers
in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices
somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.
Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it
should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against
Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question
the policy's wisdom.
Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo
surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise, and it makes
them somewhat more in favor of – or at least less against – Castro. Castro has never talked
honestly about the embargo: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he
has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful
economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator.
Some Cubans probably believe him.
Ending Cuban embargo boosts human rights and develops democracy
Johnson 08 - Roger Johnson, North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner (“Cuba: Snuff Out the Embargo”,
Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 2008 (no specific date),
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/06/cuba_snuff_out_the_embargo.html, accessed: 7/4/13,
ckr)
American policy toward Cuba is an abject failure. Nine U.S. Presidents have come and gone (and a 10th is
about to depart); Fidel Castro has just resigned, yet his closest supporters remain in power.
The real victims of this misguided policy are the two generations of Cubans who have grown up
under the U.S. embargo that has deprived them of access to U.S. consumer products. More
important, it has isolated them from the ideals of democracy and freedom, the very things we
most want for them.
In the meantime, other nations, including most of our closest allies, are openly trading with and sending tourists to
Cuba. There is a substantial market there, especially for our agricultural products, and we are
missing out on much of it. Embargoes are almost meaningless when the rest of the world ignores them.
Since 2002, North Dakota has exported nearly $40 million in agricultural commodities—mostly pulse crops (peas,
chickpeas, lentils, etc.)—to Cuba, despite the competitive disadvantage imposed on us by our own government
restrictions. Lifting those restrictions would mean greater trade opportunities.
Cuba’s government is much like those of China and Vietnam, Communist nations that enjoy trade, tourism, and
even the friendship of the U.S. Yet we treat Cuba, a tiny nation with virtually no political, economic,
or military power, as a pariah.
The U.S. should end the trade and business embargo with Cuba and move quickly to allow
tourism between our two countries. Most important, we should restore full diplomatic relations
with Havana. Only then will we have the leverage to press the new Cuban leadership to restore
human rights, establish a free market-based economy, and move to democracy.
Until we do these things, however, we will watch as others enjoy the benefits of trade with Cuba and play an active
role in the development of the island. The U.N. General Assembly has voted repeatedly for an end to the embargo
against Cuba, most recently by a margin of 183 to 4. It is time to admit we are wrong; it is time to change our
policy—for ourselves and for the people of Cuba.
Embargo blocks US from preventing socialism in Cuba
Heuvel 7/2 – Katrina vanden Heuven, editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation (“The US
Should End the Cuban Embargo”, The Nation, 7/2/13, http://www.thenation.com/blog/175067/us-should-end-cubanembargo#axzz2Y7Hs619u, 7/4/13, ckr)
Is there a greater example of utter folly than America’s superannuated policy toward Cuba? During more than 50
years corrupted by covert actions, economic sabotage, travel bans and unending embargo, the United States
managed to make Castro and Cuba an international symbol of proud independence. Intent on
isolating Cuba, Washington has succeeded only in isolating itself in its own hemisphere. Intent on
displacing Fidel Castro, the US enmity only added to his nationalist credentials.
A recent visit reveals a Cuba that is already beginning a new, post-Castro era. That only highlights the inanity of the
continuing U.S. embargo, a cruel relic of a Cold War era that is long gone.
Cuba is beginning a new experiment, driven by necessity, of trying to build its own version of
market socialism in one country. Just as populist movements in the hemisphere looked to Castro
and Cuba for inspiration, now Cuba is learning from its allies as it cautiously seeks to open up its
economy.
Ending the “genocidal” policy opens up freedom and democracy
AP 12 – (“50 Years After Kennedy’s Ban, Embargo on Cuba Remains”, The New York Times, 2/7/12,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/world/americas/american-embargo-on-cuba-has-50th-anniversary.html?_r=0,
accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
HAVANA (AP) — The world is much changed since the early days of 1962, but one thing has remained constant:
The United States’ economic embargo on Cuba, a near-total trade ban that turned 50 on Tuesday.
Supporters say it is a justified measure against a repressive Communist government that has never stopped being a
thorn in Washington’s side. Critics call it a failed policy that has hurt ordinary Cubans instead of the
government.
All acknowledge that it has not accomplished its core mission of toppling Fidel Castro or his
brother and successor, Raúl.
“All this time has gone by, and yet we keep it in place,” said Wayne Smith, who was a young American diplomat in
Havana in 1961 when relations were severed and who returned as the chief American diplomat after they were
partially re-established under President Jimmy Carter. “We talk to the Russians, we talk to the Chinese,
we have normal relations even with Vietnam,” Mr. Smith said. “We trade with all of them. So why
not with Cuba?”
In the White House, the first sign of the looming total embargo came when President John F. Kennedy told his press
secretary to buy him as many H. Upmann Cuban cigars as he could find. The aide came back with 1,200.
Although trade restrictions had been imposed by his predecessor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy
announced the total embargo on Feb. 3, 1962, citing “the subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet Communism with
which the government of Cuba is publicly aligned.”
It went into effect four days later at the height of the cold war, a year removed from the failed C.I.A.-backed Bay of
Pigs invasion meant to oust Communism from Cuba and eight months before the Soviet attempts to put nuclear
missiles on the island brought the two superpowers to the brink of war.
Little was planned to observe Tuesday’s anniversary, but Cuban-American members of Congress issued a joint
statement vowing to keep the heat on Cuba.
Supporters of the policy acknowledge that many American strategic concerns from the 1960s are now in the past,
such as curbing Soviet influence and keeping Fidel Castro from exporting revolution throughout Latin America. But
they say that other justifications remain, such as the confiscation of United States property in Cuba and the need to
press for greater freedoms on the island.
“We have a hemispheric commitment to freedom and democracy and respect for human rights,”
said José Cárdenas, a former National Security Council staff member on Cuba under President George W. Bush. “ I
still think that those are worthy aspirations.”
With just 90 miles of sea between Florida and Cuba, the United States would be a natural No. 1
trade partner and source of tourism.
The embargo is a constant talking point for island authorities, who blame it for shortages of
everything from medical equipment to the concrete needed for highway construction. Cuba
frequently fulminates against the “blockade” at the United Nations and demands the United
States end its “genocidal” policy. Every fall, a vast majority of nations back a resolution condemning the
embargo.
Embargo allows Castro to steal Cuban property
Salazar 3/25 – William De Salazar, writer at Suite (U.S. Embargo Against Cuba, Suite, 3/25/12,
http://suite101.com/article/us-embargo-against-cuba-a23463, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
Recently there have been many requests by American farmers and businessman to lift the
embargo against Cuba. Due to harder economic times in the U.S. especially farmers; one can sympathize with
them to have an increase business market to sell their crops, and products also. However, most Americans are
not aware that Castro put himself in power through military force not democracy.
Castro confiscated all properties on the island. He made it illegal for anyone but the government to own property. In
this manner in 1959, he stole all the properties and businesses owned by both Cubans and businessmen from all over
the world, the majority being Americans. Castro took over all private assets which then became Cuban
government assets. Many U.S. companies with offices in buildings built with U.S. money, manufacturing plants,
and many other types of business places throughout the island were forced to leave the country. Castro confiscated
all the infrastructure left behind. In essence, Castro stole all Cuban properties as well as U.S. businesses
with whatever these companies built as well as whatever machinery they used to operate those
businesses. In 1995, those confiscated assets were estimated by the Foreign Settlement Commission in the U.S.
Department of Justice to be worth approximately six billion dollars.
Embargo fails – lifting it solves free rights
Seattle Times 09 – (“End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba”, The Seattle Times, 12/22/09,
http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2010571248_edit23cuba.html, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
SEN. Maria Cantwell calls our attention to a law, signed by President Obama, allowing Cuba to
buy U.S. farm produce and pay after the goods are shipped. The law reverses a Treasury ruling during
the Bush years that Cuba had to pay in advance — a ruling that stopped the trade altogether.
This page favors the new law, which will allow a few of our state's farmers to make a little bit of money. But we
would go much further. We would end altogether the embargo, which was imposed under President
Kennedy almost a half-century ago.
We would allow Cuba to buy U.S. foodstuffs, and most other products, under normal
commercial rules. We would allow Americans to visit Cuba without threatening them with fines
under the Trading With the Enemy Act. We would repeal the Helms-Burton Act and allow
Americans to invest in Cuba, and we would allow some Cuban investment here. We would allow
the importation of Cuban sugar and other lawful products.
We suggest this not because we support the system in Cuba, but because we support the rights of
Americans to make their own decisions about it. For almost half a century, the United States has
restricted the rights of Americans in order to bring down Castro and communism. The policy has
done neither. It doesn't seem to have done any good at all. Certainly it has harmed ordinary people in Cuba.
Fifty years is enough. Sens. Cantwell and Patty Murray, who support trade and travel with Cuba, can afford to be
much bolder on this issue. Only one state loves the embargo, and it is time Florida was outvoted.
Cuba is reforming its socialist ways—new reforms prove
Sweig and Bustamante 13- Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America
Studies and Director for Latin America Studies; Michael Bustamante, PhD candidate specializing in Latin American
and Caribbean History at Yale, dissertation about the cultural politics of Cuban collective and historical memory, on
and off the island, in the wake of the 1959 Revolution, served as Research Associate for Latin America Studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations. (“Cuba After Communism”, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991, July/August 2013, accessed: 7/3/13, ML)
Three years ago, Castro
caused a media firestorm by quipping to an American journalist that "the Cuban
model doesn't even work for us anymore." Tacitly embracing this assessment, Fidel's brother Raúl Castro,
the current president, is leading a gradual but, for Cuba, ultimately radical overhaul of the relationship
between the state, the individual, and society, all without cutting the socialist umbilical cord. So
far, this unsettled state of affairs lacks complete definition or a convincing label. "Actualization of the Cuban social
and economic model," the Communist Party's preferred euphemism, oversells the degree of ideological cohesion
while smoothing over the implications for society and politics. For now, the emerging Cuba might best be
characterized as a public-private hybrid in which multiple forms of production, property ownership, and
investment, in addition to a slimmer welfare state and greater personal freedom, will coexist with military-run state
companies in strategic sectors of the economy and continued one-party rule.
A new migration law, taking effect this year, provides a telling example of Cuba's ongoing
reforms. Until recently, the Cuban government required its citizens to request official permission
before traveling abroad, and doctors, scientists, athletes, and other professionals faced additional
obstacles. The state still regulates the exit and entry of professional athletes and security officials and reserves the
right to deny anyone a passport for reasons of national security. But the new migration law eliminates the
need for "white cards," as the expensive and unpopular exit permits were known; gives those who left the
country illegally, such as defectors and rafters, permission to visit or possibly repatriate; and expands from 11
months to two years the period of time Cubans can legally reside abroad without the risk of
losing their bank accounts, homes, and businesses on the island.
This new moment in Cuba has arrived not with a bang but rather on the heels of a series of cumulative
measures -- most prominent among them agricultural reform, the formalization of a progressive tax
code, and the government's highly publicized efforts to begin shrinking the size of state payrolls
by allowing for a greater number of small businesses. The beginnings of private credit, real
estate, and wholesale markets promise to further Cuba's evolution. Still, Cuba does not appear
poised to adopt the Chinese or Vietnamese blueprint for market liberalization anytime soon.
Cuba's unique demographic, geographic, and economic realities -- particularly the island's aging population of 11
million, its proximity to the United States, and its combination of advanced human capital and dilapidated physical
infrastructure -- set Cuba apart from other countries that have moved away from communism. It is perhaps
unsurprising, then, that Cuba's ongoing changes do not resemble the rapid transition scenario envisioned in the 1996
Helms-Burton legislation, which conditioned the removal of the U.S. embargo on multiparty elections and the
restitution of private property that was nationalized in the 1960s. In this respect, Washington remains more frozen in
time than Havana.
Lifting the embargo undermines the government – creation of middle class
Kinzer 6/1/13 – Stephen Kinzer, Stephen Kinzer is a United States author and newspaper reporter. He is a
veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more than fifty countries on five continents. During
the 1980s he covered revolution and social upheaval in Central America. In 1990, he was promoted to bureau chief
of the Berlin bureau and covered the growth of Eastern and Central Europe as they emerged from Soviet rule. He
was also New York Times bureau chief in Istanbul (Turkey) from 1996 to 2000. He currently teaches journalism and
United States foreign policy at Boston University. Kinzer has written several non-fiction books about Turkey,
Central America, Iran, the US overthrow of foreign governments from the late 19th century to the present and, most
recently, about Rwanda's recovery from genocide. (“A specter is haunting Cuba,” Alaska Dispatch, 6/1/13,
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130601/specter-haunting-cuba, accessed: 6/28/13, amf)
Legalizing larger-scale private business in Cuba would have profound political consequences. It
would lead to the emergence of a middle class, and eventually a wealthy class. Such classes
always seek to transform their economic power into political power. Cuban leaders are acutely
aware that an open economy could be the greatest long-term threat to their revolutionary order.
This makes the US trade embargo on Cuba even more self-defeating than it has been for the last
half-century. It is among the most bizarre American foreign policies. No other country in the
world has cut itself off from Cuba. Lifting the embargo would hasten the kind of change most
Americans — and most Cubans — would like to see in Cuba. Paralyzed by fear of the Cuban vote in
Florida, however, generations of American politicians have refused to take this eminently logical step.
Embargo props up the regime
Bandow 12/11/12 – Doug Bandow, Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special
Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New
Global Empire. (“Time to End the Cuban Embargo,” The National Interest, 12/11/12,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 7/3/13, amf)
Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications
between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the president's discretion.
Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free.
It is far past time to end the embargo.
During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led
to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared
to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.
However, the
end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little
ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival
has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.
The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime
jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the
only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is
virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and
the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has
consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America.
Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to
the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their
excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of
the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is
strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana,
where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He
told me that the "sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the
totalitarian model in Cuba."
Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved
an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been
anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.
Lifting the embargo spurs mutual economic growth, which undermines the Castro regime
Bandow 12 - Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry.
He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street
Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college
campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,
Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (“Time to End the Cuba
Embargo”, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/thepointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The
U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as
$1.2 billion annually.
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 contrast to China. Still, 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.”
Lifting the embargo facilitates the spread of democracy by empowering the Cuban people
Bandow 12 – Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry.
He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street
Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college
campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,
Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (“Time to End the Cuba
Embargo”, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/thepointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much
human hardship along the way.
The
The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not
abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead
hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread
liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open
societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater
likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free.
Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.
Embargo fails – helps the regime
Sujanani 12 – Ramesh Sujanani, contributor to The Gleaner, Bachelor of Science; Diploma
management studies, Diploma Diamond Grading, UWI Mona (“Lifting The Cuban
Embargo”, The Gleaner, Nov. 24, 2012, http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20121124/cleisure/cleisure6.html, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly shared the view that the United States' embargo
against Cuba helps the Castros, noting, "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an
end to the embargo, and do not want to see normalisation with the United States."
Clinton said in the same interview that "we're open to changing with them," though the US government maintains its
strong position against lifting the embargo.
The fact is that Cuban-Americans, most of whom reside in Miami, had their property and other assets confiscated by
Fidel Castro, worth almost US$6 billion. Should the embargo be lifted, these persons will require compensation for
personal assets seized. Who will make good that claim by the Cuban migrants? Many are protesting Castro's reasons
for becoming the dictator, and are not satisfied Castro will honour his obligations. These Cuban-Americans
have supported Obama's Florida campaign, and it seems that as long as it takes to recover their assets, they
will continue to support him.
The embargo represents a failed strategy that the Cuban government uses to their
advantage
Chapman 4/15 – Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators
Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. (“It’s Time To End The U.S.
Embargo of Cuba”, Reason.com, April 15, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/itstime-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
The boycott adheres to the stubborn logic of governmental action. It was created to solve a problem: the
existence of a communist government 90 miles off our shores. It failed to solve that problem. But its failure is
taken as proof of its everlasting necessity.
If there is any lesson to be drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that the economic quarantine has
been either 1) grossly ineffectual or 2) positively helpful to the regime.
The first would not be surprising, if only because economic sanctions almost never work. Iraq under Saddam
Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North Korea? Don't make me laugh.
What makes this embargo even less promising is that we have so little help in trying to apply the squeeze. Nearly
200 countries allow trade with Cuba. Tourists from Canada and Europe flock there in search of beaches,
nightlife and Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with them. So even if starving the country into submission could
work, Cuba hasn't starved and won't anytime soon.
Nor is it implausible to suspect that the boycott has been the best thing that ever happened to the Castro brothers,
providing them a scapegoat for the nation's many economic ills. The implacable hostility of the Yankee
imperialists also serves to align Cuban nationalism with Cuban communism. Even Cubans who don't
like Castro may not relish being told what to do by the superpower next door.
Embargo theory no longer applies – we’ve adjusted our stance on other countries with a
history of bad relations
Chapman 4/15 – Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators
Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. (“It’s Time To End The U.S.
Embargo of Cuba”, Reason.com, April 15, 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/itstime-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
When it comes to sending money to a "cruel, repressive, murderous regime," Rubio's outrage is
strangely selective. The same accusation could be laid against anyone who travels to China,
Vietnam or Burma -- all of which are open to American visitors, as far as Washington is concerned.
Our willingness to trade with them stems from the belief that economic improvement and contact with
outsiders will foster liberalization rather than retard it. But the opposite approach is supposed to produce this
kind of progress in Cuba.
Do trade and tourism work to weaken repression? The evidence is mixed. But our attempted economic
strangulation of Cuba has been an emphatic bust. We keep trying it, and the communist government
remains in full control, making a mockery of our strategy.
The U.S. government has been tireless in pursuing a policy that does not look better with time. It could benefit
from the advice of W.C. Fields, who said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up.
No use being a damned fool about it."
Embargo counterproductive – other countries engage, deprives American workers, gives
the regime a scapegoat, and facilitates dangerous Cuban politics
Haass 9 – Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, this country’s
preeminent independent, nonpartisan institution devoted to thinking about America’s role
in the world. Haass was director of policy planning for the Department of State, where he
was a principal advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2003, as well as
special assistant to President George H.W. Bush and senior director on the staff of the
National Security Council from 1989 to 1993 (“Forget About Fidel”, The Daily Beast,
March 6, 2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-aboutfidel.html, accessed: 6/28/13, LR)
The American policy of isolating Cuba has
failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more
diplomatic missions than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic
embargo working. Or worse: it is working, but for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of
others that are only too happy to help supply Cuba with food, generators and building materials. Those in
Congress who complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought to consider that the embargo deprives
thousands of American workers of employment.
The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also works—perversely enough—to bolster the Cuban regime. The
U.S. embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excuse—the country's economic travails are due to
U.S. sanctions, they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and investment
also helps the government maintain political control.
There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country is
changing. The question is whether the United States will be in a position to influence the direction and pace of this
change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which the existing regime gives way to a
repressive regime of a different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a
humanitarian crisis that prompts hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States.
Rather, Washington should work to shape the behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country becomes
more open politically and economically.
Lifting sanctions key to Cuban economy and democracy – empirically proven
Amash 12 – Brandon Amash, contributing writer to the Prospect Journal of International
Affairs at UCSD (“Evaluating the Cuban Embargo”, Prospect Journal of international
Affairs, July 23, 2012, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/, accessed: 6/28/13, LR)
§ 4.3: Lifting economic
sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to
democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy.
According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic
growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and
working together to improve economic situations in the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing
the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression,
opinion and dissent.
§ 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving
human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated policy and
normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any large obstacles to
implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to support such a policy
and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has been isolated for such
a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting
democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement with
the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community, will provide the spark
and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater attention to
human rights violations.
Plan promotes good politics and boosts democracy
Lloyd 10 – Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The
International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a
regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (“Ten
Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010,
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed:
7/3/13, LR)
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 non-governmental 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.
The embargo fails – outdated and counter-productive
Lloyd 10 – Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The
International Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a
regular contributor to www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (“Ten
Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010,
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed:
7/3/13, LR)
5. It doesn't work. Of course, if the embargo were the last outpost of Cold War politics and it produced results, that
might be an argument for continuing it. But scholars and analysts of economic sanctions have repeatedly
questioned the efficacy of economic statecraft against rogue states unless and until there's been regime
change. And that's because, as one scholar put it, "interfering with the market (whether using sanctions, aid, or
other government policies) has real economic costs, and we rarely know enough about how the target economy
works or how to manipulate the political incentives of the target government to achieve our goals."
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.
Embargo prevents true democratization – our evidence assumes insufficient status quo
reforms
Cuba Study Group 2/20 – Cuba Study Group, a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization,
that aims to facilitate change, help empower individuals and promote civil society
development. (“Restoring Executive Authority Over U.S. Policy Toward Cuba”, Cuba
Study Group, February 20, 2013,
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=45d8f827-174c-4d43-aa2fef7794831032, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
The codification of the U.S. embargo against Cuba has failed to accomplish its objectives, as stated in
Helms-Burton, of causing regime change and restoring democracy in Cuba. Continuing to ignore
this obvious truth is not only coun- terproductive to the interests of the United States, but also increasingly
damaging to Cuban civil society, including the more than 400,000 Cubans now working as licensed private
entrepreneurs, because it places the burden of sanc- tions squarely on their shoulders to bear.
At a time when Cuba seems headed toward a path of change and reforms, albeit slower than desired,
and a real debate seems to be emerging within Cuba’s elite regarding its future, the inflexibility of U.S. policy
has the ironic effect of hurt- ing and delaying the very changes it seeks to produce by severely
limiting Cuba’s ability to implement major economic reforms and strengthening the hand of the
reactionaries, rather than the reformers, within the Cuban government.
Moreover, Helms-Burton and related statutory provisions in Torricelli and TSRA deny the United States the
flexibility to address dynamic conditions in Cuba in a strategic and proactive way. They effectively tie the
President’s hands in responding to developments on the Island, placing the impetus for taking advantage of the
processes of change in Cuba in hands of hard-liners among Cuba’s ruling elites, whose interests are best served by
the perpetuation of the embargo.
The Cuba Study Group is publishing this whitepaper to acknowledge that a Cuba policy fundamentally based on
blan- ket unilateral sanctions and isolation has been grossly ineffective for more than half a century; it
disproportionately hurts the Cuban people and is counterproductive to the creation of an enabling
transitional environment in Cuba where civil society can prosper and bring about the desired
social, political and economic changes for which we long.
Embargo fails – Castro uses it as a scapegoat for Cuba’s problems, continuing economic
repression
Bandow 12 – Doug Bandow, senior fellow at Cato Institute, J.D. from Stanford University (“Time to end the
Cuba embargo”, Cato Institute, 12/11/12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo,
Accessed 6/27/13)
The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The
policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the
Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana.
Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista.
After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized
American assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation,
the Cold War magnified its perceived importance.
Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were
limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was restricted, Cuban imports were banned,
Havana’s American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington
also pressed its allies to impose sanctions.
These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cuba’s reliance on the
Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992,
Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized
foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even
were banned from traveling to America.
On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued
to tighten restrictions, even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries
his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, Customs and Border
Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an
increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things,
eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal
consumption.
“Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to
spread liberty.”
Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as
telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the
president’s discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will
continue until Cuba is free.
It is far past time to end the embargo.
During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union.
Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of
Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for ousting the
Castro dictatorship.
However, the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with
little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its
survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.
The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three
years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone
equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover,
experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy.
Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is
enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.
The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has
consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America.
Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not
want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States,
because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50
years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping
the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.”
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited
Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight
years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the
failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.”
Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved
an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been
anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag.
Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments. In 1994,
John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that “the embargo remains the only effective
instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic
concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo
will help end the Castro regime more quickly.” The latter’s collapse, he wrote, is more likely in
the near term than ever before.
Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign
Relations Committee, retains faith in the embargo: “The sanctions on the regime must remain in
place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered.” One of the best definitions of
insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results.
The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential
candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community
is a significant voting bloc.
But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban
Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat
who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in
policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more
sensible approach to Cuba.
Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama
narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a
third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in
the United States.
Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the
island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may
not be essential politically.
Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential
nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition
rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo,
explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the
Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for
Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.”
There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the
European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spain’s Deputy Foreign
Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope,
then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba.
The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election.
President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the
embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more
licenses to visit the island.
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The
U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as
much as $1.2 billion annually.
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 contrast to China. Still, 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.”
The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause
much human hardship along the way.
The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United
States must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the
communist regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of
faith with the Cuban people.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to
spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more
open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a
greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban
people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come
sooner.
Lifting restrictions on Cuba creates a free, political atmosphere that supports the flow of
information and goods
Pascual et. al. 09 – Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution ( Gustavo Arnavat
Attorney
at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the
Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero
professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S.
policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise
institute dr. damián J. fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior
Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban
American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J.
(pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs
American University dr. Marifeli pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. piñón
Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor
Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés rozental
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas CoChairman Cuba Study Group, “Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement” Brookings, April 2009,
Accessed 6/26/13, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)
The more open travel and remittance measures ¶ put in place by the Clinton administration in 1998 ¶ and
continued by the Bush administration until ¶ 2003 contributed to creating the conditions that ¶ brought about a
more open political atmosphere. ¶ During the period now known as the “Cuban ¶ Spring,” Oswaldo payá,
leader of the Varela project, worked with Cuba’s human rights activists ¶ to collect 11,000 signatures on a petition
that requested a referendum on the Cuban constitution. ¶ Former president Jimmy Carter gave a speech at ¶ the
University of Havana in Spanish in which he ¶ asked Fidel Castro—who was sitting in the front ¶ row—to permit the
vote; the speech was broadcast live throughout the island. Martha Beatriz ¶ roque, an important dissident leader, held
a national assembly to advocate reforms to the Cuban ¶ government. religious groups, with help from ¶ their
American counterparts, provided equipment, food, and medicines to sister organizations ¶ that bolstered outreach to
their communities. ¶ Students from colleges throughout the United ¶ States studying in Cuba were engaged in
a lively ¶ discussion with students, academics, and people ¶ across the island.¶ The presence of licensed
American and Cuban American visitors provided moral support, ¶ advice, and assistance to diverse
civil society ¶ institutions, allowing them to expand and more ¶ effectively assist their membership. And,
interventions by U.S. government and private sector ¶ personalities with high-level Cuban
officials resulted in reducing repression against dissidents, ¶ human rights activists, independent
journalists, ¶ and librarians. This more fluid and open atmosphere was essential to the growth of civil society
and to the freedoms and creation of spaces ¶ in which human rights activists and dissidents ¶ could operate.¶ president
Obama should replicate these conditions through unilateral and unconditional actions that promote enhanced
human contact by ¶ generously licensing all categories of travel permitted in the TSrA. He should, first, follow his ¶
campaign promise to grant[ing] Cuban Americans ¶ unrestricted rights to family travel and to send ¶
remittances to the island, since Cuban American ¶ connections to family are our best tool for
helping ¶ fto foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy ¶ on the island. Further, the president should
expand travel for all American citizens and permanent residents by instructing the Office of Foreign ¶ Assets
Control (OFAC) to license people-to-people travel for educational, cultural, and humanitarian purposes. ¶
Cuban citizens should also be permitted to travel to the United States for a variety of purposes ¶ —including family,
academic and cultural visits—in order to enhance their understanding of ¶ our open and democratic society. The
Secretary ¶ of State should instruct the Department of State ¶ and the United States interests Section (USiNT) ¶ in
Havana to use standard criteria applied around ¶ the world for awarding non-immigrant visas ¶ to Cubans. This
more tolerant approach would ¶ strengthen the bonds of family and culture, while ¶ helping the Cuban
people improve their lives ¶ and grow the social organizations necessary for a ¶ democratic civil society . ¶
Diplomatic travel and interaction must be reciprocally expanded so that our diplomats in Havana ¶
have the knowledge, access, and expertise needed ¶ to predict, evaluate, and deal with any
eventuality in Cuba. This requires permitting comparable ¶ opportunities to Cuban diplomats posted in ¶
Washington. There is little the United States has to ¶ fear by allowing Cuban diplomats to see for themselves the
realities of American life. To reduce ¶ illegal migration, enhance our security, and conserve our fisheries, the State
Department should ¶ resume migration talks at the Deputy Assistant ¶ Secretary level and begin a dialogue between
the ¶ respective heads of the interests Sections on other ¶ issues of mutual concern, including the environment, health,
and counter-narcotics. ¶ The devastation caused by hurricanes that struck ¶ Cuba in 2008 generated considerable
concern ¶ among Cubans in the United States and among ¶ the broader American public. Unfortunately,
disagreements and distrust between our governments prevented the United States from assisting ¶
with relief efforts. in order to avoid a recurrence of ¶ this impasse, the Department of State should seek ¶
an understanding or agreement with the Cuban ¶ government that would permit U.S. assistance to ¶
Cuba for natural disasters.¶ Measures are now in place to ensure that public ¶ resources that provide support to
the Cuban people are well used by USAiD grantees. However, ¶ large contracts concluded in the final months of ¶ the
Bush administration with non-profit organizations and private companies that are said to ¶ promote or manage a
transition in Cuba may not ¶ reflect the current administration’s objectives. A ¶ review should be conducted to
determine whether these contracts should be continued, modified, ¶ or canceled.¶ Additionally, although OFAC has
always had the ¶ authority to license the importation of lifesaving medicines developed in Cuba for testing by ¶ the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it ¶ has made the process cumbersome and lengthy. ¶ The sad conclusion is
that OFAC has been more ¶ concerned with the financial benefits that might ¶ accrue to Cuba than with the potential
of these ¶ medicines to treat children with brain tumors and ¶ adults with lung cancer or meningitis. To
reduce ¶
bureaucratic hurdles and permit the speedy entry ¶ of life-saving medications into the United
States, ¶ OFAC regulations should be modified or reinterpreted so that the only barrier to the entry
of ¶ Cuban manufactured medicines is that they meet ¶ FDA standards—the same criteria that apply to
all ¶ medical imports.¶ The president should also seek to promote the ¶ free flow of ideas and
information, including the ¶ creation of music, films, and other works of art ¶ as embodied in representative
Howard Berman’s ¶ 1988 Free Trade in ideas Act. Despite the prohibition against the U.S. government restricting the
¶ importation of all informational materials, successive administrations have narrowly interpreted the Berman Act in
order to prohibit Americans from creating music, films, and other artistic ¶ works with Cubans. These prohibitions
were not ¶ intended by the statutes and should be removed.¶ The aforementioned initiatives are noncontroversial and widely supported by the American public. ¶ More controversial—although still
enjoying widespread public support—would be licensing the sale ¶ and donation of all communications
equipment, ¶ including radios, televisions, and computers. The ¶ CDA recognized the importance of
expanding ¶ access to ideas, knowledge, and information by ¶ authorizing the licensing of telecommunications ¶ goods
and services. U.S. government financing of ¶ books and radios that are distributed to Cubans ¶
throughout the island demonstrates a belief that ¶ breaking down the barriers to the flow of information
is critical to promoting change in Cuba. The ¶ president should therefore instruct the Department ¶ of Commerce
and OFAC to internally change their ¶ respective licensing policies with regard to Cuba ¶ from a “presumption of
denial” to a “presumption ¶ of approval” with respect to items deemed to be ¶ in the U.S. national interest for Cuba to
receive, ¶ including laptops, cell phones and other telecommunications equipment, computer peripherals, ¶ internet
connection equipment, as well as access ¶ to satellite and broadband communications networks. ¶ The following
initiatives that would provide assistance for civil society and for activities that ¶ help the Cuban people become
agents for change ¶ would require, in some cases, a formal understanding with the Cuban government, and, in ¶
others, at least a willingness to permit the activity. ¶ We believe that if these activities were permitted ¶ by the United
States and the Cuban governments, ¶ they would help to prepare the Cuban people for ¶ assuming a greater role in
their governance. ¶ The U.S. government should act to enhance the ¶ flow of resources to the Cuban people. it
should ¶ license U.S. non-governmental organizations and ¶ private individuals to transfer funds to
individuals ¶ and civil society organizations in Cuba that work ¶ to foster a more open society. The United
States ¶ should also encourage the creation of multilateral ¶ funds that promote the same objective. Such
assistance should not be subject to an ideological ¶ test but rather be available to Cuban civic entities ¶ in the form of
microcredit for small businesses ¶ and for salaries of persons engaged by civil society ¶ to provide community
services, among others.¶ Although the U.S. government currently manages ¶ an assistance program for Cuba, it is
limited by ¶ sanctions regulations and is narrowly focused. ¶ Much of the assistance—amounting principally ¶ to inkind goods—is difficult to deliver due to the ¶ opposition of the Cuban government either to the ¶ type of assistance
or to the groups or individuals ¶ receiving it. in order to better serve the needs of ¶ civil society in Cuba, the U.S.
government should ¶ seek to obtain the approval of the Cuban government for an assistance program
that would provide financial and in-kind assistance for activities ¶ that advance human rights and
the rule of law, ¶ encourage microenterprise, and promote educational, and professional
exchanges. ¶ The issue of whether Cuba should be classified by ¶ the U.S. government as a terrorist state has
many ¶ supporters and detractors. However, the reasons ¶ listed for Cuba’s inclusion on the list appear to be ¶
insufficient, thus leading to charges that the list is ¶ a political tool for appeasing domestic constituencies.
in order to ensure that this important vehicle ¶ in U.S. policy is used appropriately, a review of the ¶ evidence should
be conducted. if Cuba is legitimately found to be a terrorist state based on the ¶ evidence over the last five years, it
should remain ¶ on the list; if not, it should be removed.¶ Finally, it is in our interest to see Cuba reintegrated
¶ into the Organization of American States (OAS) if ¶ it meets membership standards of democracy, human
rights, and transparency. To this end, and in ¶ order to provide incentives for reform, the United ¶ Sates should not
object to the OAS Secretary General discussing with Cuba the requirements for ¶ reinstatement as
a full member. in addition, the ¶ United States should not object to Cuba’s participation in OAS specialized and
technical agencies. ¶ Medium-Term Initiatives¶ The second basket of initiatives is distinct from the ¶ first because it
moves beyond enhancing the ability ¶ of Cubans to take a more proactive and informed ¶ part in their society and
government. The initiatives in the second basket seek to build a foundation for reconciliation by beginning a process
of ¶ resolving long-standing differences. A number ¶ of these initiatives could serve as incentives or rewards for
improved human rights, the release ¶ of political prisoners, and greater freedom of assembly, speech and rights for
opposition groups ¶ and labor unions. initiatives that fall within this ¶ category include allowing Cuba access to
normal commercial instruments for the purchase of ¶ goods from the United States. ¶ None of the initiatives,
however, should be publicly ¶ or privately tied to specific Cuban actions. As the ¶ Cuban government is on
record as rejecting any ¶ type of carrot-and-stick tactic, it would be counterproductive to do so. rather, the United
States ¶ should decide the actions that it wishes to take ¶ and when to carry them out. Doing so will give ¶ the
president maximum flexibility in determining ¶ how and when to engage.
Embargo causes democratization – China proves
Harding and Rojas-Ruiz 12 – Andrew Harding and Jorge Rojas-Ruiz, research associates on
the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (“An Economic Analysis of the Cuban Embargo”, Council
on the Hemispheric Affairs, 8/24/12, Proquest, Accessed 7/3/13, AM)
Washington's decision to continue the embargo against Cuba is, at best, hypocritical. China,
another nominally communist country with even more backward human rights policies than
Cuba, has reaped the benefits of free trade with the U.S. since in 2001. The 2011 report from
conservative think tank Freedom House gave low scores in political rights and in civil liberties to
both Cuba and China, listing the two countries among the most repressive in the world.
Yet China has had the opportunity to trade with the United States and has used it to foster
economic development within its borders. As a result of significant increases in agricultural
output, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line declined from 63 percent
in 1981 to 10 percent in 2004, bringing five-hundred million people above the poverty line
within 23 years. While China's protection of civil and political liberties remains far from
desirable, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, through the development of a
legal system in China that encourages property rights, " trade is anchoring the process of
democratization ". The correlation between trade and the development of durable legal institutions
provides an example that Cuban and U.S. officials should consider.
Reflections
Clearly, Cuba has plenty of potential for economic development and trade, but nothing will be
realized unless United States repeals the embargo. Recent moves by Cuba's Raul Castro indicate
that the government is willing and able to sit down with the U.S. and discuss differences in order
to achieve consensus. In recent remarks, Castro emphasized that the discourse must be "a
conversation between equals," and that "any day they [the United States] want, the table is set,"
signaling an important step towards more conciliatory interactions. The U.S. should act upon
Senator Richard Lugar' s February 2009 report from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations and
implement his recommended policy changes by "seizing the initiative... [which] would relinquish
a conditional posture that has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not Washington."
Conclusions
The world has fundamentally changed since Castro's coup in 1959. After the fall of the Soviet
Union, the weak arguments behind the embargo became completely illogical, as the so-called
communist threat no longer exists. Additionally, Cuba's revolutionary leaders are dead or dying
and the country has made steps towards reform. Even America's staunchest allies have realized the
folly of the sanction and have disregarded the policy. Moreover, the United Nations has passed
repeated resolutions against the embargo. In 201 1, for the 20th consecutive year, the UN
General Assembly reiterated its call for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba that has restricted
economic, commercial and financial flow for over fifty years.
All told, there exists no solid political or economic logic for Washington to continue the
embargo. The United States risks being left behind as the world moves on and does business
with a nation only 90 miles from its soil. It is worth re-examining the basic motivations of the
American people and the interests that lie closest to their hearts. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th US
president, summed up these motivations best when he stated, "After all, the chief business of the
American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling,
investing and prospering in the world." The US would be wise to follow his advice.
Embargo ineffective at promoting democracy
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
§ 3.1: The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights.
Without the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective. As
other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor
hindrance to Cuba’s economy. Moreover, the sanctions are detrimental to the United States
economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly, since economic
sanctions are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also unrelated;
continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to promote better human
rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support. Empirically, it is clear that since its
inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization or improving human rights. Something
more must be done in order to improve the situation.
Embargo strengthens Castro and stops democracy
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
§ 3.2: American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castro’s ideological position and created
opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby decreasing the likelihood of democratization
and improvement in human rights. Cuba’s revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The
emergence of a communist state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the
United States’ rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet involvement. The embargo
also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid blame for poor human rights conditions on
the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 – 22). Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an
enemy of democracy during the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable
(Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark against communism,
the long-term effects of the policy have essentially precluded the possibility for democracy in
Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War, communism persists in Cuba and human rights violations are
systemic; America’s policy has not achieved its goals and has become a relic of the Cold War era. The
prospects for democracy and improvement in human rights seem as bleak as ever.
Lifting the embargo promote liberalization in Cuba
McElvaine 11- Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps college, (“Lift the U.S.
trade embargo on Cuba,” 9/8/11, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/08/opinion/la-oemcelvaine-cuba-20110908, 7/4/13, CAS)
Make no mistake: Cuba is not a free country. Conditions have improved, though, and we have been able to walk
about on our own and talk with anyone we meet. Many Cubans take a justified pride in the accomplishments of their
country since the revolution, particularly in healthcare and education.
But it is obvious that there is substantial discontent with the status quo under the Castro brothers.
Over the last decade, a two-class system has developed in which those who can work in the tourist industry
make much more than other Cubans do. Many professionals who, in order to earn a decent living, are
obliged to work as bellmen, waiters, bartenders, elevator operators and the like are seething with anger.
So, clearly, is a difficult-to-gauge percentage of the much larger number of Cubans who have no opportunity to get
those jobs.
Cubans we meet on the streets are very curious about the United States. Ending the embargo would also
mean U.S. citizens could travel to Cuba without restrictions. The more Americans who come here, the
greater the desire of the Cuban people for more freedom will become. Fidel Castro is 85 and ailing; Raul
is 80. An influx of Americans is almost certain to strengthen the forces for liberalization in Cuba.
Embargo hurts Cubans and helps Castros
Griswold 09- Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato center for trade policies, (“Obama
Should Lift Embargo on Cuba Immediately,” 6/16/09,
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-should-lift-embargo-on-cuba-immediately,
7/4/13, CAS)
The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban
government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a
bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived
Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars
of potential exports.
As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government's standing by
giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island's Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul
can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their
communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what
happens in Havana.
In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this
modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from
virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From
dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American
farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil.
According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if
restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank
subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean
that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way.
USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas,
Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the
US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level,
to $1.5bn a year.
Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of
the Castro regime. And it's true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a
large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to
Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.
If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised,
the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the
exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of "bread for beaches", "food for fun" trade
relationship.
Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between
Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed,
which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime.
Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and
farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans
better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
Embargo helps Castro and hurts economy
Walther 12- Nick Walther, graduate of Emerson college, (“The Cuba Embargo Is Hurting
Men,” 12/7/12, http://goodmenproject.com/politics-2/the-cuba-embargo-is-hurting-men/,
7/4/13, CAS)
The continuation of the embargo was meant to weaken Fidel Castro’s communist regime and make the
lives of Cubans so unbearable that the government would have no choice but to respond to the pressure of the
United States and the Cuban people to liberalize their economy and democratize their politics. The embargo has
failed miserably to achieve this objective.
In fact, the embargo has likely strengthened the Castro regime, by providing an easy scapegoat for
state propaganda to blame all of Cuba’s ills on. The embargo has served to validate Castro’s portrayal of the United
States as the neocolonial hegemony of the region: determined to subjugate the people of Cuba and Latin America
and reincarnate the tyranny of Batista, the pre-revolutionary tyrant backed by the United States because of his
friendly relations with American business. Cubans don’t blame their own government for the stranglehold placed on
them by the most powerful country in the world.
The embargo has also served to aimlessly punish the Cuban people, even complicating, with its archaic
rules, the availability of medical supplies in the country. Although American medical exports are
permitted, the red tape—designed to thwart a nonexistent military threat—has proven insurmountable for
the hospitals, clinics, and offices where they are most needed. This undermines America’s reputation as
a humanitarian nation.
The only thing that the embargo has done successfully is cost the American economy $1.2 billion
every year in lost sales and exports. With the economy still struggling, it is unacceptable for American companies
to lose the chance to create jobs and expand business with a country ninety miles from Florida. What’s more, with
men having lost a disproportionate number of the jobs in the present recession, ending the embargo would
encourage trade, helping shore up the manufacturing and shipping sectors, traditionally male jobs that have suffered
severe cutbacks. Every year since 1992,The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the embargo as
illegal, with the only two nations regularly voting against such a condemnation being America and Israel. Doesn’t
this annual denunciation complicate our country’s reputation as one run by the rule of law?
Lifting the embargo rushes changes
Cave 12- Damien Cave, foreign correspondent for the New York Times, (“Cuban embargo:
Should U.S. loosen it?” 11/22/12,
http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_22042074/cuban-embargo-should-u-sloosen-it, 7/4/13, CAS)
Still, in a country where Cubans "resolve" their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with
customs agents are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the U.S. change course.
Lopez, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing imports and
investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government's controls
while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state.
Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase the pressure
for more rapid change by undermining one of the government's main excuses for failing to
provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies.
Embargo will not solve democracy – empirics
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program,
Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security
Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for
The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)
Peter Hakim, President of the Inter¶ -¶ American Dialogue, has rightly argued that a¶ “democratic
society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a¶ precondition.”¶ 11¶ Vietnam
and China both fall under the rule of communi¶ st leadership,¶ yet the US has taken steps to
establish formal diplomatic relations and open trade with¶ both countries. Cuba should not
continue to be the exception . Others have argued¶ that US¶ -¶ Cuba cooperation on issues
cou¶ ld benefit¶ both countries and initiate trust¶ -¶ building among
the two countries.¶ Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has
failed to¶ meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cuba’s communist government,
making¶ a change in c¶ ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help¶
to move Cuba into the 21¶ st¶ century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US¶ from
engaging Cuba and presenting the US with an opportunity to bring about¶ change in Cuba
through¶ economic and diplomatic channels.¶ By opening Cuba, the US¶ could finally achieve the
change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.
such as counter¶ -¶ narcotics efforts
Solves democracy – trade makes countries more democratic – studies prove
Zimmerman 10 – CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Fellow of the Center for The Study of the
Presidency and Congress, Member of The Juvenile Rights Project and the Legal Aid Society,
Barnard College, (“Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a
Broken Policy”, The Presidency – 2010 Fellows, NO DATE (Paper was written in 2010),
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf, Accessed
6/27/13, AW)
A policy environment open to¶ international trade and investment is a necessary i¶ ngredient to
sustain higher rates¶ of economic growth and to promote political freedom¶ through exposure to
new¶ technology, communications, and democratic ideas (G¶ riswold, 1; Sachs and¶ Warner).
Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S.¶ food is a means of lowering¶ domestic prices and
increasing incomes of the poor,¶ food availability and domestic¶ production. U.S. companies
will introduce new tech¶ nologies and production¶ methods, while raising wages and labor
standards as¶ a result of trading with Cuba.¶ The additional creation of wealth will help to adva¶
nce social, political, and¶ economic conditions independent of the governing au¶ thorities in
Cuba. The most economically open countries today are more than thr¶ ee times as likely to enjoy
full¶ political and civil freedoms as those that are rela¶ tively closed (Griswold, 1).
Human Rights Credibility extns.
Embargo is a systemic violation of human rights and an act of genocide
UNGA 12 United Nations General Assembly,(“Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the
United States of America against Cuba”,cubavsbloqueo.cu,5/12,http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/informebloqueo2012/Idiomas/1206%20informe%20bloqueo%202012%20Ingles.pdf,Accessed:7/3/13,JW)
The policy of blockade against Cuba persists and has been intensified despite the attempts of and growing
protests by the international community to have the US government change its policy towards¶ Cuba, lift the blockade and
normalize bilateral relations between the ¶ two countries. ¶ The blockade violates International Law; it is contrary to the
purposes ¶ and principles of the United Nations Charter and constitutes a violation39 ¶ of the right to peace, development and security of a
sovereign State. ¶ Its
objectives are an act of mass, flagrant and systematic violation of the
human rights of an entire people and qualifies as an act of genocide by virtue of the Geneva Convention of 1948
essence and
on the ¶ Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It
also violates the constitutional rights of the American people,
since it puts restrictions on their freedom to travel to Cuba. Moreover, given its ¶ extraterritorial character, it violates the sovereign
rights of many other ¶ States. ¶ The economic damage caused to the Cuban people by the application of the economic,
commercial and financial blockade of the United States against Cuba until December of 2011, taking into account the ¶ devaluation
of the dollar vis-à-vis the price of gold and the world ¶ market, amounts to 1 trillion 66 billion (1,066,000,000,000) dollars. At current
prices, and based on a very conservative estimate, this figure exceeds 108 billion (108,000,000,000) dollars.¶ The
blockade continues to be an absurd, obsolete, illegal and morally unsustainable policy; it has not
succeeded, nor will it succeed, in its ¶ attempt to subjugate the patriotic decision of the Cuban people to ¶ preserve their
sovereignty, independence and right to free selfdetermination. But
it generates shortages and sufferings for the ¶ population, it
imposes limitations on and delays the development of the country and seriously damages the economy of Cuba . It is
the ¶ main obstacle to the economic and social development of the Island. ¶ The blockade is a unilateral policy, rejected both inside the United ¶
States and by the international community. The United States must lift it, immediately and unconditionally. ¶ Once
again, Cuba appreciates and requests the support of the ¶ international community in order to put an end to this unfair, illegal and ¶ inhuman
policy.
Lifting trade embargo key to human rights – improves US image
Franks 12 – Jeff Franks, writer at Reuters (“Cuba says ending U.S. embargo would help both countries”, Reuters,
9/20/12, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargo-idUSBRE88J15G20120920, accessed:
6/27/13, ckr)
(Reuters) - Both the
United States and Cuba would benefit if Washington would lift its
longstanding trade embargo against the island, but U.S. President Barack Obama has toughened the
sanctions since taking office in 2009, a top Cuban official said on Thursday. The embargo, fully in place
since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has violated the
constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S.
companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters. " The blockade is, without doubt, the
principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential obstacle for (our)
development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo. " The blockade provokes suffering, shortages,
difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban child," Rodriguez said. He spoke at a press
conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United Nations on a
resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month. Last year, 186 countries voted
for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo, Rodriguez said.
Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said,
adding that it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of
human rights."
That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government
permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said.
"The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view,"
Rodriguez said. Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country
for any destination. Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the
sluggish U.S. economy. " In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the
United States a totally new market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end
the situation in which American companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said.
Obama, who said early in his presidency that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has been a
disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the embargo.
Embargo oppresses Cuban people—US double standard
Stephens 09—Sarah Stephens, Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas (“U.N. Vote to Condemn
(Obama's?) Embargo on Cuba”, Huff Post WORLD, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-stephens/un-vote-tocondemn-obamas_b_333722.html, Accessed 7/4/13, jtc)
Our policy is especially controversial in our own hemisphere, where the U.S. alone is without diplomatic relations
with Cuba, and where forum after forum -- including the Rio Group, the Ibero-American Summit, the Heads of State of Latin America and the
Caribbean, and CARICOM -- has rejected the embargo and called for its repeal.¶ Beyond our diplomatic interests, the report forces us to move
beyond the stale, political debate in which the embargo is most often framed (where every problem on the island is blamed on either Cuba's
system or U.S. policy) and to confront the significant injuries this policy inflicts on ordinary Cubans. ¶ It reminds us:¶ The
embargo stops
Cuba from obtaining diagnostic equipment or replacement parts for equipment used in the
detection of breast, colon, and prostate cancer.¶ The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining patented materials
that are needed for pediatric cardiac surgery and the diagnosis of pediatric illnesses.¶ The embargo
prevents Cuba from purchasing antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV-AIDS from U.S.
sources of the medication.¶ The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining needed supplies for the
diagnosis of Downs' Syndrome.¶ Under the embargo, Cuba cannot buy construction materials
from the nearby U.S. market to assist in its hurricane recovery.¶ While food sales are legal,
regulatory impediments drive up the costs of commodities that Cuba wants to buy from U.S.
suppliers, and forces them in many cases to turn to other more expensive and distant sources of
nutrition for their people.¶ Because our market is closed to their goods, Cuba cannot sell products
like coffee, honey, tobacco, live lobsters and other items that would provide jobs and
opportunities for average Cubans.¶ This list, abbreviated for space, is actually much longer, more vivid and troubling, as the
report documents case after case of how our embargo affects daily life in Cuba. And for what reason? Because it will someday force the Cuban
government to dismantle its system? As a bargaining chip? These arguments have proven false and futile over the decades and what the UN has
been trying to tell us since 1992 is that they should be abandoned along with a policy that has so outlived its usefulness.¶ And yet, it is now the
Obama administration supporting and enforcing the embargo -- still following Bush-era rules that thwart U.S. agriculture sales; still levying stiff
penalties for violations of the regulations; still stopping prominent Cubans from visiting the United States; still refusing to use its executive
authority to allow American artists, the faith community, academics, and other proponents of engagement and exchange to visit Cuba as
representatives of our country and its ideals.¶ To his credit, President Obama has taken some useful steps to change U.S. policy toward Cuba. He
repealed the cruel Bush administration rules on family travel that divided Cuban families. He joined efforts by the OAS to lift Cuba's suspension
from that organization. He has opened a direct channel of negotiations with Cuba's government on matters that include migration, resuming direct
mail service, and relaxing the restrictions that Cuban and U.S. diplomats face in doing their jobs in each of our nation's capitals.¶ This is a start,
but more -- much more
-- needs to be done. Not because the UN says so, but because our country
needs to embrace the world not as we found it in 1959 -- or in 2008 -- but as it exists today. President Obama can do this.
Our times demand that he do so.
Embargo is unpopular and violates human rights
Fox 11 – Michael Fox, Michael Fox is a former editor of NACLA Report on the Americas,
he is the co-author of the new book Latin America’s Turbulent Transitions: The Future of
21st Century Socialism (“The UN and Human Rights: Condemning the U.S. Embargo of Cuba”,
North American Congress on Latin America, Oct 26 2011, https://nacla.org/news/2011/10/26/un-andhuman-rights-condemning-us-embargo-cuba, Accessed: 7/3/2013, EH)
On Tuesday, the UN General Assembly again voted overwhelming to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba. This was
the 20th consecutive vote against the U.S. embargo. The final result was 186-2 in favor of the resolution. Like last year, only Israel and the
United States voted against the measure while the island nations Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands abstained.
517 The United Nations (credit: CNN U.S.)Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said yesterday that the sanctions over the last five
decades have caused the Cuban people nearly $1 trillion in economic damages.
After a surprise visit to Cuba in April, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter also called for an end of the embargo. But as William M. LeoGrande,
the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs, wrote in the July/August 2011 NACLA Report, a profound change in U.S. policy
toward Cuba isn’t likely any time soon.
This is partially due to the fact that since the end of the Cold War the United States has justified its embargo against Cuba as a policy of human
rights.
The embargo is “one aspect of U.S. policy toward Cuba, whose overarching goal is to encourage a more open environment in Cuba and increased
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” said Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs,
recently.
However, according to international relations scholar Arturo López-Levy in the most recent NACLA Report, the embargo itself actually
violates basic principles of the human rights model established by the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
“[T]he problem with the embargo is that human rights as a whole have never been an essential consideration in its design,” writes López-Levy in
his piece, " ‘Chaos and Instability’: Human Rights and U.S. Policy Goals in Cuba.” “One right above all others takes precedence in U.S. Cuba
policy: the right of Cuban exiles to reclaim their private properties that were nationalized during Cuba’s revolutionary process after 1959. The
embargo furthermore reflects Cuban exiles’ desire to punish those who do not accept them as the rulers of Cuba by including measures to ‘purify’
the island of the current government’s upper echelons and many of its followers.”
The embargo causes human rights issues in Cuba, changing policy solves
March 13 – William March- Tribune Staff, quotes Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa, (“Castor to
Obama: Reform ‘outdated’ Cuba embargo, travel ban”, The Tampa Tribune, April 23 2013,
http://tbo.com/article/20130423/SERVICES02/130429992/1438, Accessed: 6/28/13, EH)
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa, fresh back from a trip to Cuba, has told President Barack Obama in a letter that the U.S. travel ban and trade
embargo against Cuba are outdated, unproductive and harmful and should be reformed.
In the four-page letter, Castor never quite says “lift the embargo” or “end the travel ban,” but she comes very close.
“America's policy of isolation toward Cuba, i.e. the travel ban and embargo of the last 50 years, has resulted in little change,”
she writes. “It is time to refresh America's relationship with Cuba and develop a more humane and smarter approach than the outdated Cold War
policies of the past.”
Castor also quotes the Human Rights Watch organization saying the embargo “continues to impose indiscriminate hardship
on the Cuban people and has done nothing to improve human rights in Cuba.”
She asks Obama to “heed the words of many of the Cuban dissidents I have spoken to who urge America to give greater attention to its island
neighbor, lift the embargo and promote modernization of civil society in Cuba.”
As she has before, Castor argues in the letter that Cuba has made “significant changes” in allowing free enterprise for its citizens; that the travel
restrictions violate the rights of Americans; that Cuba is not a “state sponsor of terrorism”; and that a policy of engagement would improve
America's diplomatic standing in the region.
She also notes Cuba's quick return of the two Hakken children abducted by their father in Tampa recently, and her own constituents' frequent
need for help in making visits and contacts with family members in Cuba in instances of family emergencies.
Cuban embargo is inhumane
DNO 12(“Cuba makes case for lifting of US embargo”, Dominica News Online, October 10
2012, http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/international-relations/cuba-makes-case-for-lifting-ofus-embargo/, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
The Cuban government is once again calling on the international community to support its call for the lifting of
the trade embargo imposed by the United States.
At a press conference, to garner local support, Cuban ambassador to Dominica Joanna Elena Ramos on Wednesday
described the embargo “as an act of genocide.”
“The increased persecution of Cuba’s international financial transactions has been one of the distinctive features in the
implementation of the blockade policy under the current US administration,” she argued.
For the 21st consecutive time Cuba on November 13th, 2012 will submit for the consideration of the UN General Assembly the
draft resolution entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of
America against Cuba”.
Since its conception the resolution has been steadily gaining support from nations around the globe. Last year 186 member states
voted in favor of the resolution, which according to Cuba is irrefutable proof that the battle for the lifting of the blockade has the
recognition and support of the vast majority of the international community.
But calls for lifting the embargo have fallen on deaf ears. In 2012 the US imposed a $619-million fine on the Dutch bank ING for
making transactions with Cuba, in dollars.
Actions like these due to the embargo are described by the Cuban ambassador as criminal and inhumane. “ The blockade
continues to be a criminal, inhumane and morally unsustainable policy that has not succeeded and will never
succeed in fulfilling the purpose of breaking the political will of the Cuban people to preserve its sovereignty,
independence and right to self-determination,” she stated.
She said the embargo is having a devastating impact on Cuba. “The direct economic damage to the Cuban people by
the implementation of the economic, commercial and financial blockade of the United States against Cuba until December 2011
based on the current prices and calculated in a very conservative way, amount to over 108 billion dollars (108,000,000,000),” she
said. “Taking into consideration the depreciation of the US dollar against the price of gold in the international financial market,
the damages cost to the Cuban economy would exceed one trillion 66 thousand million dollars
($1,066,000,000,000).”
She also thanked the Dominican government for its continued support on the matter.
Cuban embargo is an extreme human rights abuse, medicine, development, and disaster
relief
Mingxin 10 –Bi Mingxin, editor and columnist for xinhuanet.com (“U.S. embargo denies
right of Cubans to development: Venezuela”, English.news.cn, 2010-10-27,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-10/27/c_13576914.htm, Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 26 (Xinhua) -- Venezuela said here Tuesday that the U.S. embargo against Cuba is "a repeated
and unilateral denial" of the right of the Caribbean island country and its people to development, and criticized
the United States for continuing to "ignore the voice of the peoples of the world that demand the end of this genocidal policy."
The statement came as Jorge Valero, Venezuela's permanent representative to the United Nations, was taking the floor at an open
debate of the UN Security Council on "the necessity of ending economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the
United States against Cuba."
"The blockade is, in short, a repeatedly and unilateral denial, by a signatory to the United Nations Charter, of the right to
development of another member states," he said.
Valero, who also described the U.S. blockade as "criminal," said, "The blockade affects the legitimate interests of any sovereign
state that legitimately decides to become a business partner of the Republic of Cuba, through the extraterritorial application of the
U.S. legal system."
The United States imposed the trade embargo on Cuba in early 1960s when both countries severed diplomatic ties.
"The devastating collateral damage inflicted each day to the brotherly people of the island by the policy of the
blockade, are unjustifiable," he said. "It would cause a massive humanitarian disaster in Cuba -- as recognized by the
American Association of World Health -- if this nation did not have an extraordinary system of public health."
"The blockade against Cuba has diverse impacts on the daily lives of women and men, children and the elderly," he said. " It
manifests itself -- crudely -- in the way it affects the quality of life of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia,
which must do without the standard treatment for this disease."
"The blockade also manifests in the difficulties of the people to have access to the enjoyment of housing rights," he said. "It
hinders the import of building materials needed to replace and repair the huge number of buildings affected
by the hurricanes."
"The blockade generates millions in losses each year in Cuba 's basic industries: sugar, steel work and tourism," he said.
Meanwhile, he said that the new U.S. government did nothing to change its policy towards Cuba and continued to ignore the
voice of the world for an end to such an embargo.
"The change of government in the United States generated great expectations regarding a new policy respecting the sovereignty
of nations," he said. "There is nothing that suggests, however, that there have been substantial changes in the foreign policy of the
United States, in particular, in regards to the blockade against Cuba."
"The U.S. government continues to ignore the voice of the peoples of the world that demand the end of this
genocidal policy which represents a violation of human rights," he said.
Lifting the embargo improves the US humanitarian image, UN support
Amnesty International 11 --- Amnesty International, world-renowned organization that
addresses humanitarian issues (“Amnesty International Annual Report 2011 – Cuba”, May 13,
2011, RefWorld, http://www.fln.dk/NR/rdonlyres/4858E8BD-DCC2-4AB8-AE3549EED9AE3222/0/cuba018_udg130511_opt080711.pdf, accessed June 27, 2013, MY)
US embargo against Cuba¶ The US embargo continued to affect the economic, social and cultural development of
¶ the Cuban people and in particular the most vulnerable groups. ¶ According to the UN
Population Fund, treatments for children and young people with ¶ bone cancer and for patients
suffering from cancer of the retina were not readily ¶ available because they were
commercialized under US patents. The embargo also ¶ affected the procurement of antiretroviral
drugs used to treat children with HIV/AIDS. ¶ Under the terms of the US embargo, medical
equipment and medicines manufactured ¶ under US patents cannot be sold to the Cuban
government. ¶ In September, US President Barack Obama renewed the extension of economic and ¶ financial sanctions against Cuba as
provided for in the Trading With the Enemy Act. In ¶ August, he relaxed travel restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups under ¶ the
"people-to-people" policy. For
the 19th consecutive year, a resolution calling on the ¶ USA to end its
embargo against Cuba was adopted by an overwhelming majority (187 ¶ votes to two) in the UN
General Assembly.
The embargo fails and causes humanitarian issues
Bandow 12 --- Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special
assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan (“Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, December
11, 2012, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo,
accessed July 4, 2013, MY)
The U.S. government has waged economic war against the Castro regime for half a century. The
policy may have been worth a try during the Cold War, but the embargo has failed to liberate the
Cuban people. It is time to end sanctions against Havana.¶ Decades ago the Castro brothers lead a revolt against a
nasty authoritarian, Fulgencio Batista. After coming to power in 1959, they created a police state, targeted U.S. commerce, nationalized American
assets, and allied with the Soviet Union. Although Cuba was but a small island nation, the Cold War magnified its perceived importance.¶
Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel was
restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havana’s American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also
pressed its allies to impose sanctions.¶ These various measures had no evident effect, other than to intensify Cuba’s reliance on the Soviet Union.
Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba
and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from
traveling to America.¶ On occasion Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions,
even over Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability
Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an increased risk of
embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, eliminated the allowance for travelers to import a small amount of
Cuban products for personal consumption.¶ “¶ Lifting
sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for
the power of free people to spread liberty.Ӧ Three years ago, President Barack Obama loosened regulations on Cuban
Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba. However, the law sharply constrains the president’s discretion.
Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the embargo will continue until Cuba is free. ¶ It
is far past time to end the
embargo.¶ During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban
missile crisis. With the failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be Washington’s best strategy for
ousting the Castro dictatorship.¶ However,
the end of the Cold War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a
poor country with little ability to harm the United States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its
survival has no measurable impact on any important U.S. interest.¶ The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of
course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department
contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate
human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has
used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect.¶ The
policy
in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the
embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the
United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos
Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the
hardliners.Ӧ
Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally)
visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons
for eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify
the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.”
The embargo’s cost on Cuban people is immense
Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute
(“KISS THE EMBARGO GOODBYE”, February 2009, SSI,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY)
The cost to the Cuban people has been huge. Besides the violence visited upon them ¶ by their
repressive regime, there is also the economic and quality of life costs of¶ isolation. Castroite resistance to
democratic and economic reforms combines with the ¶ deleterious effects of the embargo. The Cuban people, who enjoyed one of the
largest ¶ economies in the Western Hemisphere in 1959, suffer from poverty stemming from a ¶ paucity of jobs and
medical problems caused by a lack of protein and vitamins in their ¶ diet. ¶ The one reason that no
one mentions is that the embargo provides an excuse for the ¶ regime‟s tyranny. Dissidence is punished
by jail or execution. The 75 dissidents who ¶ met with the head of the U.S. interest section in Havana were imprisoned for sentences ¶ that
averaged 17 years.
The government maintains a relatively large Ministry of the ¶ Interior to provide internal security. It also
for the Defense of the Revolution [CDR]),
which makes ¶ neighbors spy on neighbors and family members spy on each other. The government ¶
maintains the Comités para la Defensa de la ¶ Revolución (Committees
points to U.S. actions as the reason for that internal security.
The embargo has hurt the Cuban people and caused a human rights violation
AAWH 97 - American Association for World Health, private national organization in the U.S. dedicated to funneling a broad spectrum of
critical national and international health information to Americans [“Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo On The
Health And Nutrition In Cuba,” American Association for World Health, 3/1997, http://www.cubasolidarity.net/aawh.html, accessed: 6/27/13,
JK]
After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has
dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the
attached report, it is our expert medical opinion that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and
even deaths-in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system.
But since 1992 the number of unmet medical needs patients going without essential drugs or doctors
performing medical procedures without adequate equipment-has sharply accelerated. This trend
is directly linked to the fact that in 1992 the U.S. trade embargo-one of the most stringent embargoes of its kind, prohibiting the
sale of food and sharply restricting the sale of medicines and medical equipment-was further tightened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act. A
humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care
system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens. Cuba
still has an infant mortality rate half
that of the city of Washington, D.C.. Even so, the U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies
has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system. The crisis has been compounded by the
country's generally weak economic resources and by the loss of trade with the Soviet bloc.
Status quo is inhumane.
Lloyd, 2011 [Delia Lloyd, Delia, freelance writer and political science professor at the University of Chicago,
“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Politics Daily, 2011 , http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/tenreasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, Accessed: June 28, 2013, KH)
It's inhumane. If strategic arguments don't persuade you that it's time to end the embargo, then perhaps
humanitarian arguments will. For as anyone who's traveled to the island knows, there's a decidedly enclave-like feel
to those areas of the economy where capitalism has been allowed to flourish in a limited sense (e.g. tourism) and the
rest of the island, which feels very much like the remnant of an exhausted socialist economic model. When I
went there in the 1990s with my sister, I remember the throngs of men who would cluster outside the tourist haunts.
They'd hope to persuade visitors like me to pretend to be their escort so they could sneak into the fancier hotels and
nightclubs, which they could not enter otherwise. Horse -- yes, horse-- was a common offering on menus back then.
That situation has apparently eased in recent years as the government has opened up more sectors of the economy to
ordinary Cubans. But the selective nature of that deregulation has only exacerbated economic inequalities.
Again, one can argue that the problem here is one of poor domestic policy choices, rather than the embargo. But it's
not clear that ordinary Cubans perceive that distinction. Moreover, when you stand in the airport and watch tourists
disembark with bucket-loads of basic medical supplies, which they promptly hand over to their (native) friends and
family, it's hard not to feel that U.S. policy is perpetuating an injustice.
Embargo currently violating human rights
Charbonneau 12-Louis Charbonneau, is a journalist working for the Reuters news agency. He is
currently posted at the United Nations. He has been working for Reuters since 2001. He previously
worked for BridgeNews (formerly Knight-Ridder Financial) and United Press International.(U.N. urges end
to U.S. Cuba embargo for 21st year,reuters.com, Nov 13, 2012,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-cuba-embargo-un-idUSBRE8AC11820121113, June 28,
2013, KH)
Rodriguez said the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other
countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S.
interests and harms its credibility.
"It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding that the embargo has failed to achieve its
objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and political freedoms and comply with
international human rights standards.
"There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said.
He said it qualified as a "act of genocide" against Cuba and was a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation
of the human rights of an entire people."
Embargo bad – hurts Cuban people
Karon 10 – Tony Karon, senior editor at TIME (“Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?”, TIME,
4/21/10, http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html, 7/2/13, ckr)
It actually helps keep Castro in power
Never mind the fact that it's failed to dislodge him after 38 years, the embargo is
now Castro's catchall
excuse for every ill that plagues his decaying socialist society. It helps him paint the U.S. as
hostile and an imminent threat in the eyes of the Cuban people, which is how he rationalizes his
authoritarian politics. Opening the floodgates of trade will leave Castro with no excuses, and
interaction with the U.S. will hasten the collapse of his archaic system.
What's good for China is good for Cuba
China is a lot more repressive than Cuba, and yet we've normalized trade relations with Beijing
on the argument that trade will hasten reform and democratization. We're even lifting sanctions against
North Korea despite the fact that their missile program is supposedly a threat to our skies, whereas the Pentagon
has long since concluded that Cuba represents no threat to U.S. security. It's nonsensical to argue that
trade induces better behavior from communist regimes in China and North Korea, but will do the opposite in Cuba.
It mostly hurts the people it's supposed to help
You can be sure Fidel Castro isn't going to bed hungry and or suffering through a headache because
there's no Tylenol to be had. Yet millions of his people are suffering all manner of deprivations
that the could be eased by lifting an embargo that's never going to overthrow him anyway.
Stopping Cubans from benefiting from trade with the U.S. and interaction with American tourists
leaves Castro unscathed, but it deprives the Cuban people of a taste of freedom that could only
undermine a repressive regime.
Embargo hurts our international standing and Cuban human rights
RT 12- (“Condemned…again: 'Genocidal' US embargo on Cuba slammed by UN for 21st year,”
11/14/12, http://rt.com/news/cuba-embargo-un-vote-635/, 7/2/13, CAS)
The UN has urged the US to lift the 52-year trade embargo with Cuba in an almost-unanimous vote.
Cuba likened the blockade to “genocide” and said it was disappointed that Obama had not taken measures to
lift the disputed embargo.
Of the 193 members of the UN assembly, 188 voted to abolish what is widely perceived as an illegal blockade. The
only two nations that got behind the US were Israel and the Pacific nation of Palau, while two countries abstained
from the vote.
This is the 21st year running that the UN has decried the American economic sanctions against the island nation.
Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez addressed the assembly, voicing Cuban disappointment that despite
Obama’s pledge to open a new chapter in Cuban-American relations on assuming office four years ago, no steps had
been taken the lift the crippling embargo.
"The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of …the embargo," he
said.
The Cuban government has calculated that since the blockade was enforced in 1960 the total financial
damage to Cuba’s economy is around US$3 trillion.
Rodriguez qualified the maintenance of the embargo as tantamount to “genocide” and a
“massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights” of the people of Cuba.
Embargo fails, and hurts Cuban human rights and global relations
Ratliff 09- William Ratliff, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and a member of
the Board of Advisors of the Institute’s Center on Global Prosperity, (“Why and How to Lift
the U.S. Embargo on Cuba,” 5/7/09, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2496, 7/3/13,
CAS)
The embargo made sense during the Cold War, but no longer. A majority of Americans and Cubans
now oppose it, including a majority of Cuban dissidents in Cuba and Cuban-Americans in Miami. Only the U.S.
Congress still won’t move as a body, bound as it is by inertia and domestic political calculations. Alas, its role is
critical since the passage of the 1996 Helms Burton Act, which codifies the embargo.
How has the embargo failed? It
has not brought down the Castro brothers, advanced democracy,
freedom, human rights or prosperity in Cuba, or gotten compensation for Americans whose assets Cuba
seized decades ago. It largely denies Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, or to trade freely and
otherwise interact Cubans on the island.
And in recent decades it has given Fidel the scapegoat he needs—us—to excuse his economic
utopianism and brutality.
Supporters of the embargo see it as an expression of America’s moral indignation at Castro’s brutal
policies. By limiting the flow of dollars to Cuba we deny some funds to Cuban security forces, as
they argue, but we simultaneously withhold support for the daily lives of the Cuban people.
For twenty years the embargo placated the very noisy Cuban American community in Florida, but by late 2008 even
a majority of Cuban Americans, according to a Florida International University poll, had turned against it. It isn’t
that Cuban Americans are going soft on Fidel, but that a majority finally see or admit that this policy is more
harmful than positive to its own interests.
And it is harmful to U.S. interests as well, which ought to be our primary concern, alienating the
Hemisphere and the world as a whole while having only negative impacts in Cuba.
The embargo only strengthens Castro- lifting it will bring change
Estevez 12- Carlos Estevez, staff columnist at nyunews.com, (“Ending embargo means real
freedome for Cuba,” 10/22/12, http://nyunews.com/2012/10/22/estevez-3/, Accessed: 6/28/13, CAS)
The Cold War has faded into history, but the embargo still haunts the lives of Cubans. More importantly, it
breathes life into the Castro regime. A quick glance at the different interest groups vying for and against the embargo reveals
why the status quo persists and how it has divided Cuba.
Democrats generally oppose the embargo, advocating compromise and discourse with Cuba. Republicans insist that the embargo is a crucial tool
in negotiating a democratic transition within the island. The U.S. political system has essentially transformed this human rights issue into a choice
between two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Both sides seek the same goal of attaining freedom for the Cuban people from their government,
and both share a common ignorance as to the impact of the embargo on Cubans or on the regime. Politicians have taken strategic stances on this
issue for the sake of elections, mainly appeasing the Cuban-American voting bloc with little regard to the people affected by the embargo.
Cuban-Americans have ruled the discourse on the embargo, as they are among the few citizens with an
interest in Cuban politics. The unacquainted observer might note that they stand united for keeping the
embargo. A closer inspection reveals a highly divided community as diverse as the term Cuban-American, which more accurately describes
50 years of continuous migration rather than a given ethnic group. Many Cubans left at the onset of the revolution, leaving behind all of their
belongings. Others left in Operation Peter Pan, in which parents sent their children to the United States due to rumors that the Castro regime
would ship kids to the Soviet Union. These politically active groups mainly vote in favor of the embargo, directly influenced by their personal
experiences.
Younger generations of Cubans, those who left in the Mariel boatlift of 1980 and the Rafter movement of the
’90s, have slowly shifted the Cuban-American stance on the embargo. Perhaps because they lived
through the hardships of the Cuban reality, they see little benefit in keeping the embargo.
Even within Cuba, the ruling elite benefits from the embargo while the average citizen suffers.
Cuban Communism has made most citizens equally poor, and these poor Cubans oppose the embargo, while the
government uses it as an excuse for all of Cuba’s dilemmas, including frequent electricity, food and Internet
shortages. For this very reason, the Cuban government would face significant questions if the embargo
ended. In fact, the word embargo rarely figures in Cuban politics. Instead, the Castro regime refers to it as a
blockade. This implies that the United States blocks Cuba from contact with the outside world, which greatly
overestimates the embargo’s impact on the Cuban economy. This ruling elite does not significantly suffer
from the embargo. They enjoy a high standard of living, profiting from Cuba’s resources. Instead, the embargo
only serves to legitimize Cuba’s revolution as a force struggling against the United States.
Those who seek true freedom for Cubans and the end of the Castro regime should advocate
repealing the embargo. Both the Castro regime and U.S. politicians benefit from the status quo at
the expense of dividing and subjugating the Cuban people at home and abroad.
Lifting embargo contributes to humanitarian, diplomatic, and economic strength
Trani, 6/23 – Eugene P. Trani, president emeritus and University Distinguished Professor at
Virginia Commonwealth University. (“Trani: End the embargo on Cuba”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 23,
2013, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/end-the-embargoon-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the people of Cuba.
In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It
was also evident that there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing.
Today, there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of
the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is
also a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our
policy.
What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the
world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with
Cuba. We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic
gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.
Travel is a basic human right that we are denied by the embargo.
Paul 13 (Ron Paul, “Why Can’t We All Travel To Cuba?”, Antiwar.com, April 16 2013,
http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2013/04/15/why-cant-we-all-travel-to-cuba/, Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
Earlier this month, entertainers Jay-Z and Beyoncé were given a license by the US government to travel to Cuba. Because it is
not otherwise legal for Americans to travel to Cuba, this trip was only permitted as a “cultural exchange” by the US Treasury
Department. Many suspect that the permission was granted at least partly due to the fame, wealth, and political connections of the
couple.
Some Members of Congress who continue to support the failed Cuba embargo, demanded that the Administration explain why
these two celebrities were allowed to visit Cuba. The trip looked suspiciously like tourism, they argued in a letter to the White
House, and American tourism is still not allowed in Cuba. They were photographed eating at the best restaurants, dancing, and
meeting with average Cubans, which these Members of Congress frowned on.
Perhaps it is true that this couple used their celebrity status and ties to the White House to secure permission to travel, but the real
question is, why can’t the rest of us go?
The Obama administration has lifted some of the most onerous restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed under the previous Bush
administration, but for the average American, travel to the island is still difficult if not impossible.
However, even those who are permitted to go to Cuba are not allowed to simply engage in tourist activities — to
spend their money as they wish or relax on a beach.
The US government demands that the few Americans it allows to travel to Cuba only engage in what it deems “purposeful
travel,” to “support civil society in Cuba; enhance the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help
promote their independence from Cuban authorities.” They must prove that they maintain a full-time schedule of educational
activities, according to Treasury guidelines for “people-to-people” travel.
Leave it to the federal government to make the prospect of visiting that sunny Caribbean island sound so miserable.
The reason the US so severely restricts and scripts the activities of the few Americans allowed to travel to Cuba is that it believes
travel must promote the goal of taking “important steps in reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights
of all its citizens.”
Although I have no illusions about the Cuban government – or any government for that matter — it is ironic that the US chose to
locate a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because the indefinite detention and torture that took place there would have been
illegal on US soil. Further, the US government continues to hold more than 100 prisoners there indefinitely even though they
have not been found guilty of a crime and in fact dozens are “cleared for release” but not allowed to leave.
Does the administration really believe that the rest of the world is not annoyed by its “do as we say, not as we do” attitude?
We are told by supporters of the Cuba embargo and travel ban that we must take such measures to fight the communists in charge
of that country. Americans must be prohibited from traveling to Cuba, they argue, because tourist dollars
would only be used to prop up the unelected Castro regime. Ironically, our restrictive travel policies toward Cuba
actually mirror the travel policies of the communist countries past and present. Under communist rule in the former
Soviet Union and elsewhere it was only the well-connected elites who were allowed to travel overseas – people like Jay-Z and
Beyoncé. The average citizen was not permitted the right.
Although the current administration’s slight loosening of the restrictions is a small step in the right direction, it makes no sense
to continue this nearly half-century old failed policy. Freedom to travel is a fundamental right. Restricting
this fundamental right in the name of human rights is foolish and hypocritical.
Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba – gives Castro more power
Henderson 08 – David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and is also
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (“End the Cuban
Embargo”, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.
By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer
than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism.
Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro.
There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's
profoundly immoral.
It could succeed only by making average Cubans – already living in grinding poverty – even
poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And
consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Proembargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba. Yet their solution –
prohibiting trade with Americans – is the very essence of socialism.
The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the
target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a
hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada,
produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba,
and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and
President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers
in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices
somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.
Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it
should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against
Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question
the policy's wisdom.
Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo
surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise, and it makes
them somewhat more in favor of – or at least less against – Castro. Castro has never talked
honestly about the embargo: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he
has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful
economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator.
Some Cubans probably believe him.
Empirics prove- trade helps human rights
Farrell 09- Chris Farrell, graduate of Stanford and the London School of Economics and
economics editor of Marketplace Money, (“Benefits of lifting the Cuban embargo,” 4/16/09,
https://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/benefits-lifting-cuban-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)
Farrell: I think the real lesson that you take from this is that trade is
revolutionary, commerce is revolutionary.
And trade is not just money and entrepreneurial opportunities. It also means exposing an
economy to different ideas, and ideas that are an anathema to a bureaucracy that is in power. And we have a
very good counter-example. Remember in the 1990's, the Clinton administration came under a lot of
pressure to set up trade embargoes with China because a lot of the human rights violations. And I'm
not minimizing, by the way -- I am not minimizing human rights violations in China, I am not minimizing human
rights violations in Cuba. But the administration continued the trade with China, and it was the right
move -- China is now more integrated into the global economy, there's a lot more information in that
economy, it's moving in the right direction. And so that's what I want to see trade with Cuba. I think
that's the real lesson to take here.
Embargo a form of Genocide
Sympatico 10 (“Is the U.S. Embargo on Cuba a Form of Genocide?”, Amnesty International, September 8, 2010,
http://www3.sympatico.ca/danchristienses/CubaFAQ137.html, Accessed: July 2, 2013, SD)
¶
What is genocide?¶ To answer this question, we must define what is meant by genocide. According to Oxford English Dictionary, genocide is
"the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation."¶ The Law¶ Under
international law the legal
definition is given in Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention and covers a much wider range of crimes. Article
2 states:¶ In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ¶ (a)
Killing members of the group; ¶ (b) Causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; ¶ (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ¶ (d) Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group; ¶ (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.¶
Item (c) would seem to be the most relevant in the case of the US embargo on Cuba. It tells us that, to prove the
perpetrators of these sanctions are guilty of genocide, we do not need to prove that any deaths were directly attributable to these sanctions. We are
required only to prove that the perpetrators deliberately inflicted on the Cuban people conditions
of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part. This is relatively
easy to prove.¶ A Brief History¶ The US embargo first came into effect during the Kennedy administration in 1962. Thirty years later in
1992, shortly after the collapse of Cuba's main trading partner, the former USSR, the US regime moved in for the kill with intensified trade
sanctions under its so-called Cuban Democracy Act, also known as the Torricelli Act. ¶ Four years later in 1996, with the Cuban people having
weathered the worst of the economic collapse and as defiant as ever, the US embargo was tightened further still with the introduction of the socalled Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act.¶ Today, while there have since been limited openings
in one-way trade in food and medicine, these two laws form the
legislative underpinning of the US embargo, a master
plan to wreck the Cuban economy and thereby deprive the population of many of the essentials
of life. The all too predictable outcomes have been documented by various international humanitarian and human rights groups. ¶ From "The
US attack on Cuba's health," Canadian Medical Association Journal, August 1, 1997:¶ In 1992 Cuba was in a severe economic depression, largely
resulting from a loss of preferential trade with the Soviet bloc. Cuba turned to US foreign subsidiaries, from whom it received $500-600 million
per year in imports -- 90% of which was food and medicine. The American Public Health Association warned the US government that tightening
the embargo would lead to the abrupt cessation of this supply of essential goods and result in widespread famine. Indeed, 5 months after passage
of the CDA [Cuba Democracy Act] , food shortages in Cuba set the scene for the worst epidemic of neurologic disease this century. More than
50,000 people suffered from optic neuropathy, deafness, loss of sensation and pain in the extremities, and a spinal cord disorder that impaired
walking and bladder control.¶ That the US embargo has harmed the Cuban people has also been documented by the American Association for
World Health. It performed a year-long review of the implications of embargo restrictions which included on-site visits to 46 treatment centers
and related facilities, 160 interviews with medical professionals and other specialists, government officials, representatives of non-governmental
organizations, churches and international aid agencies. Their 300 page report, "Denial of Food and Medicine: THE IMPACT OF THE U.S.
EMBARGO ON HEALTH AND NUTRITION IN CUBA," dated March 1997, concluded:¶ After a year-long investigation, the American
Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of
ordinary Cuban citizens. As documented by the attached report, it is our expert medical opinion that the U.S. embargo has caused a significant
rise in suffering -- and even deaths -- in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban
health care system.¶ Clearly then these sanctions were meant to kill. It was only thanks to the renowned fighting spirit of
the Cuban people, and countless acts of international solidarity, that the death count was kept to a minimum. Despite these cruel sanctions, Cuba's
health care system actually continued to improve and is widely regarded as the best in Latin America. This in no way, however, diminishes the
criminal responsibility of the US regime.¶ In 2003, even Amnesty
International, after years of dithering, was finally forced to
concede in a report actually critical of Cuba that, yes, the US embargo is:¶ (a) "highly detrimental to Cubans'
enjoyment of a range of economic, social and cultural rights...¶ (b) "has had a very significant
negative impact on the overall performance of the national economy, diverting the optimal allocation of
resources from the prioritized areas and affecting the health programmes and services...¶ (c) "compromises the quality of life of
the population, specifically the children, the elderly and the infirm... ¶ (d) "is used to harm the most vulnerable members
of society."¶ And how did the Bush regime respond to these shocking revelations at the time? Had it immediately lifted the embargo, it
might be argued that these outcomes were unintentional. But the regime did just the opposite -- in 2004 they actually moved to intensify these
cruel sanctions! Remittances and family visits were severely curtailed in hopes of cutting off an important source of hard currency and material
support for Cuban families, along with unprecedented financial restrictions on payments for shipments of food and medicine bound for Cuba. The
amount of food exported to Cuba from the US declined each year for several years immediately afterward. ¶ In another report critical of Cuba in
2004 (and reiterated in March 2005), the UN Human Rights Commission, as well, was forced to concede that, "It is also impossible to ignore the
disastrous and lasting economic and social effects of the embargo imposed on the Cuban population over 40 years ago." ¶ In January of 2005 (and
2006), Human Rights Watch reiterated that, "The U.S. economic embargo on Cuba, in effect for more than four decades, continues to impose
indiscriminate hardship on the Cuban people."¶ In September, 2006, Christine Chanet,
the Personal Representative of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights, in another of her reports critical of Cuba, explicitly criticized the "severe restrictions
caused by a disastrous embargo, exacerbated in 2004 by unbearable restrictions on the movement of persons and goods." ¶ She also said that
the US embargo, which she "deplores," was "not a path to democracy (sic), and should not
continue." (UN HRC discussion)¶ In November, 2006, the Miami Herald gleefully reported:¶ The Bush administration's vow to
enforce U.S. regulations is stifling Cuba's ability to operate in international markets... ¶ U.S. companies are allowed to export agricultural products
to Cuba, provided they receive cash payments before the goods are delivered. But even cash payments must move through banks, so the
restrictions are giving U.S. corporations headaches...¶ ''It's the hassle factor,'' said John Kavulich, senior policy advisor with the U.S.-Cuba Trade
and Economic Council, which tracks bilateral economic relations. "They've coupled rhetoric with enforcement, and it's worked!''¶ In January
2007, Amnesty International confirmed again that:¶ Amnesty International has called for the US embargo against Cuba to be lifted, as it is highly
detrimental to Cubans' enjoyment of a range of economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to food, health and sanitation -- particularly
affecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of the population. ¶ Conclusion¶ The
genocidal intent of the Bush regime had
never been more clear. Therefore, under the terms of the of the UN Genocide Convention, the US embargo does
indeed appear to be a form of genocide.¶ ¶ Follow-up, March 2009¶ Amnesty International reiterates its condemnation of the
US embargo two months into the mandate of the new Barack Obama administration:¶ Amnesty International urges the US government to lift the
nearly five-decade long economic and trade embargo against Cuba as it is detrimental to the fulfillment of the economic and social rights of the
Cuban people. It obstructs and constrains efforts by the Cuban government to purchase essential medicines, medical equipment and supplies, food
and agricultural products, construction materials and access to new technologies. ¶ Source: "Cuba and the Fifth Summit of the Americas,"
Amnesty International, March 2009¶ ¶ Follow-up, September 2009¶ By September 2009, very little seemed to have actually changed as far as the
US embargo was concerned. Eight months into President Obama's mandate, it seemed to this writer that Amnesty International had all but called
for the arrests of the perpetrators of these crimes against the Cuban people! Citing the continued blocking and constraining of vital imports of
medicines, supplies and technology, Amnesty called called these cruel and inhumane sanctions "immoral" and demanded that it be "lifted without
further delay":¶ The US embargo against Cuba is immoral and should be lifted. It’s preventing millions of Cubans from benefiting from vital
medicines and medical equipment essential for their health.¶ Source: "President Obama should take lead in lifting embargo against Cuba,"
Amnesty International, September 2009¶ Amnesty International calls on the US Congress to take, without further delay, the necessary steps
towards lifting the economic, financial and trade embargo against Cuba.... ¶ The UN General Assembly has repeatedly condemned the US
embargo as contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and international law.... ¶ The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also
reiterated its position regarding “the impact of such sanctions on the human rights of the Cuban people and, therefore, insists that the embargo be
lifted...."¶ [E]xports of food and agricultural products to Cuba remain regulated by the Department of Commerce and require a licence for export
or re-export. The export of medicines and medical supplies continues to be severely limited.... ¶ The restrictions imposed by the embargo help to
deprive Cuba of vital access to medicines, new scientific and medical technology, food, chemical water treatment and electricity....¶ The impact
of economic sanctions on health and health services is not limited to difficulties in the supply of medicine. Health and health services depend on
functioning water and sanitation infrastructure, on electricity and other functioning equipment such as X-ray facilities or refrigerators to store
vaccines. The financial burden and commercial barriers have led to shortages or intermittent availability of drugs, medicines, equipment and
spare parts. It has also hindered the renovation of hospitals, clinics and care centres for the elderly. ¶ Source: "The US embargo against Cuba: Its
impact on economic and social rights," Amnesty International, September 2009 ¶ In addition to blocking essential imports, the US embargo also
continued to impose a significant drag on the development of the Cuban economy, especially in the areas of agriculture and food production.
According to at least one US agricultural expert, simply
lifting the economic and financial restrictions imposed on
Cuban farmers by the US embargo would have a dramatic impact on their production levels:¶ Cuban
agriculture has such a big potential that if it were to be totally developed it could surpass the volume of production of the Free
Trade Treaty [the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) presumed]. ¶ William A. Messina Jr., of the University of
Florida's Agriculture Science Institute, said, that the communist island "has such good soil and it
represents a challenge of such magnitude that, with the end of the embargo, the agricultural
market impact on the continent would be larger that of the Free Trade Treaty.''¶ Source: "Cuba's agriculture
shows promise," Miami Herald, September 29, 2009¶ ¶ Follow-up, September 2010¶ Amnesty International reiterates its condemnation of the US
embargo:¶ [The US embargo's is] negatively affecting Cubans’ access to medicines and medical technologies and endangering the health of
millions. United Nations agencies and programs operating in Cuba, such as UNICEF, UNAIDS and UNFPA, have reported that the US embargo
has undermined the implementation of programs aimed at improving the living conditions of Cubans. ¶ Source: "Amnesty International criticises
President Obama's decision on Cuba," Amnesty International, September 8, 2010 ¶ ¶ Follow-up, October 2010¶ On October 26, 2010 the UN
General Assembly voted overwhelmingly again to condemn the US embargo. Only Israel voted with the US against the resolution. Israel trades
freely with Cuba, so even this single vote cannot be seen as support for these cruel and inhumane sanctions. On this the US is truly isolated on the
world stage. The only abstentions were the tiny US-island colonies in the South Pacific: Palau (pop. 20,000), Micronesia (pop. 110,000) and the
Marshall Islands (pop. 60,000).
The US has a moral obligation to uphold human rights around the world-especially Cuba
Edghill 12- Michael W. Edghill, teaches courses in US Government and in Latin America & the Caribbean in
Fort Worth, Texas. He is a contributor to Caribbean Journal. His work has also appeared in the Yale Journal of
International Affairs, Diplomatic Courier, and others,(The Moral Obligation Next Door, International Policy Digest,
June 29, 2012, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/06/29/the-moral-obligation-next-door/, Accessed:
June 28, 2013, KH)
But the
US is still the most powerful nation in the world. With that power often comes the
expectation that the US should be the great force for peace and justice globally. If ‘American
exceptionalism’ is still the modus operandi, then the US should be venturing to solve grand problems.
The idea that great power brings with it a moral obligation to help those who are helpless is widely
accepted in both domestic policy and in foreign policy. Much of the coming campaign will revolve around what our
priorities should be and how the government can best help the American people. Additionally, the time has come for
the US to reprioritize its foreign policy.
US foreign policy over the last 30 years has been dominated by a series of interventions, diplomatically and militarily, in the Middle East with
cursory glances towards the trouble spots in the world at that time. That focus has translated into a disproportionate amount of American
resources being tied up in that region for a full generation.
It is not to say that the United States does not have an obligation to come to the aid of those that are
being oppressed. Assisting in the removal of violent and dangerous dictators can be seen as a just cause
and something that only the US has the ability to do. There is a role for the US to play in stopping the
assault on Syrian citizens by the Assad regime. There is a role for the US in standing up for pro-democracy forces in
the Middle East. There is absolutely a role for the US to play when large scale humanitarian crises are present from
the horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush.
Unfortunately, as the riots aimed at the US by angry Afghan citizens prove, the blood and treasure spent by the United States in the Middle East
may only be marginally effective.
The problem, and the need to reprioritize, lay in the fact that while the State Department has been intensely focused on the Middle East, the
problems of the Western Hemisphere have been largely ignored. While the moral obligation to aid the humanitarian crises in east Africa have
been well documented, the humanitarian crisis of Haiti has fallen off of the radar since the immediate response after the earthquake. The UNDP
Human Development Index, which ranks countries based on citizen education, life expectancy, and standard of living, consistently ranks Haiti in
the bottom tier of nations along with Afghanistan and many African countries.
At a time when government officials are talking of budget cuts and debt reduction, the need to have American aid dollars go towards meeting a
need in a productive way is paramount. And unlike some other foreign policy investments, investments in Haiti appear to be productive according
to USAID statistics which show a 6% growth in Haitian GDP in 2011.
While the US government wrestles with how to effectively end the government assault on citizens in Syria, many in and out of government speak
passionately about the obligation that the US has to aid in this blatant violation of human rights. Yet we rarely hear of the continued human rights
abuses that occur on a daily basis just across the Florida Straits.
The governmental assault on the people of Cuba is well-hidden by Castro’s government. The principle
is the same though. The people that oppose the government are assaulted and in many cases, taken away
to be abused in a myriad of inhumane ways in Cuban prisons. The government that holds high the
banner of defending human rights should be beating the drum every day and relentlessly calling for an
end to human rights abuses in Cuba. Dissident bloggers and groups like the Ladies in White should know that they have the
attention of the US government and that the continued violation of human rights 90 miles from US shores is at least as important as human rights
violations halfway around the world.
While the inability to provide for citizen security in many areas of the world leads to the acute fear of a failed state, similar conditions in the
Western Hemisphere very rarely receive mention. Over the last decade, the American public has grown weary of nation-building and would be
very reluctant to support the rebuilding of a failed state. It would be wise to be proactive in ensuring that this does not happen, especially in the
Americas.
The most common cause of a failed state is when the government loses the ability to maintain order and protect the security of its citizens. While
the US has been deploying assets to the Middle East over the last 10 years to help secure those populations, there has been a disturbing trend in
the Caribbean. The 2012 UNDP Caribbean Human Development Report cited that while most parts of the world show decreasing or stable
homicide rates, the trend of violent crime in the Caribbean is increasing.
Outside of war torn Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean is the most violent region in the world. A good percentage of the violence that takes
place regionally is a result of drug cartel activity.
Few other foreign policy issues present themselves on the streets of the United States on a daily basis in the same way that the inability of Latin
American and Caribbean governments to effectively combat narcotics traffickers does. Drug consumption is linked to violence and poverty in
American cities and drug trafficking is responsible for extreme violence and political instability in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Yet, by way of financial assistance and directed attention, it appears that US foreign policy neglects to sincerely address these issues.
The argument of whether or not the US has a moral obligation to help the vulnerable in the world is one that will continue to engage American
politicians and policy makers for years to come.
If we assume however, that a moral obligation does exist, then the United States should not focus so
intensely on humanitarian issues halfway around the world that they miss the moral obligations
that exist right next door.
Human rights Oppression Extns.
Embargo fails now—sanctions don’t promote human rights
Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights. Without the
help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have been ineffective.
As other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership with America is only a minor hindrance to Cuba’s economy. Moreover,
the sanctions are detrimental to the United States economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic economic partner. More importantly,
since economic sanctions are not directly related to the goal of improved human rights, the effect
of these sanctions is also unrelated; continued economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for
the Cuban government to promote better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support.
Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting democratization or improving human rights. Something
more must be done in order to improve the situation.
Lifting the embargo solves Cuban human rights violations
Perez 10 – Louis A. Perez Jr. Professor of history and the director of the Institute for the
Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (“Want change in
Cuba? End U.S. embargo”, CNN, September 21 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html , Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
In April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests
of the United States."
Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami.
The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the
Cuban people and advance our national interests."
Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba.
The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible.
On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there . For 50 years,
its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people.
This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope
that they would rise up and overturn their government.
"The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment
and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship."
The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen.
Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island."
The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased
rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort.
And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them
down and distracted.
Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with
survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else.
In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local
grocery store or waiting for public transportation.
Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit
suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000
people.)
A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's
main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy."
The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily
life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.
Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and
vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair.
A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its
sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle
dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights.
And it would serve the national interest.
Cuba is a massive violator of human rights.
Perales 2010 [ Jose Perales. Perales is a senior program associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American Program.
Christopher Sabatini is the senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. The Woodrow Wilson
Center is one of Washington’s most respected institutions of policy research and public dialogue. Created by an act of Congress
in 1966, the Center is a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson and his ideals of a more informed public policy community in Washington. It supports research on in- ternational policy issues; organizes conferences, seminars, and working groups;
and offers resi- dential fellowships for scholars, journalists and policymakers. Center director Lee H. Hamilton is a widely
respected former member of Congress who chaired the House International Relations Committee. The Latin American Program
focu- ses attention on U.S.-Latin American relations and important issues in the region, including democratic governance, citizen
security, peace processes, drug policy, decentralization, and economic development and equality. “The United States and Cuba:
Implications of an Economic Relationship” WOODROW WILSON CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf August 2010 Accessed: July 3, 2013. AK]

Whether or not one agrees with the U.S. embargo against Cuba, what must be kept in mind is the fact that the embargo
is there for reasons of human rights, argued Christopher Sabatini, policy director at the Council
of the Americas, and that has been how the embargo been defended. And in this we can’t lose sight of the fact
that Cuba’s record on human rights is abysmal. The regime currently has detained over 200
political prisoners, many of whom have been arrested for the vague charge of “dangerousness.”
Cuba violates freedom of association, strictly limits freedom of expression, and systematically
violates the core covenants of the International Labour Organization (ILO). When the debate strays from this
central issue of rights, Sabatini stated, we lose sight of the real issues facing Cuba and Cuban citizens today. For this
reason, any and all changes to the U.S. embargo must first and foremost be geared toward strengthening the hand of the
island’s independent sectors. According to Sabatini, there is broad scope in the United States for the executive to make
regulatory changes that can give U.S. businesses and institutional actors greater scope to begin developing closer relations
inside Cuba.This is important because any change to the status quo in bilateral economic relations will start with the
executive’s authority over the embargo’s regulations. Indeed, a quick perusal of past efforts at dismantling U.S.
embargoes—in particular, against Vietnam—reveals that terminating an embargo has never been the result of a straight
up-or-down congressional vote. Instead, this has been the result of slight, incremental regulatory changes that have
served to allow independent actors to develop their own contacts with counterparts on the island and empower people.
These made the incentives for change easier to recognize, built an active, vested coalition supporting broader change, and
made dismantling more palatable to political audiences.
Human rights Solvency Extns.
Lifting the embargo solves Cuban human rights violations
Perez 10 – Louis A. Perez Jr. Professor of history and the director of the Institute for the
Study of the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (“Want change in
Cuba? End U.S. embargo”, CNN, September 21 2010,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html , Accessed: 7/3/13, EH)
In April 2009, the White House released a presidential memorandum declaring that democracy and human rights in Cuba were "national interests
of the United States."
Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela repeated the message in May of this year to the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami.
The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the
Cuban people and advance our national interests."
Fine words. But if
the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would
end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba.
The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible.
On the contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there.
For 50 years, its brunt has fallen mainly on the Cuban people.
This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans
in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government.
"The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment
and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship."
The United States tightened the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen.
Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island."
The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating services and increased
rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort.
And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the embargo keeps them
down and distracted.
Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with
survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything else.
In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local
grocery store or waiting for public transportation.
Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit
suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000
people.)
A June 2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the island's
main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy."
The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life.
Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.
Ending the embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the
vision and vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair.
A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to
its sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public
debate and stifle dissent -- all to the good of democracy and human rights.
And it would serve the national interest.
Lifting tourism ban supports human rights
Schlesinger 09-- Robert Schlesinger, managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, author of
"White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." (“It's Time to End the Cuba Travel Ban (the Embargo
Too)”, U.S. News, 4/1/2009, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/04/01/its-time-to-endthe-cuba-travel-ban-the-embargo-too, Accessed 7/3/13, jtc)
To be clear: The trade embargo would still be in place, but tourism would be good to go. So a company couldn't do business in Cuba, but any of
us could fly down there and flood the place with dollars. It's a start, and I'll take it.¶ Speaking of floods of dollars, the L.A. Times cites a
2002 study that estimates lifting the travel ban would produced between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion annually and
create as many as 23,000 new jobs. I'll take that too.¶ Of course, much like their nemesis, the anti-Castro hard-liners in Congress hold
on:¶ Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) strongly opposes the measure. He warned that flooding Cuba with tourists and dollars would only sustain the
Castro regime. ... Martinez accused the Chamber of Commerce and business interests of seeking profits at the expense of freedom and
democracy.¶ "They are not acting from a moral standpoint," he said. "They are simply acting from an economic advantage standpoint." ¶ Three
points here: The
embargo does more to help the Castro regime than hurt it, by giving the Cuban
government a standing excuse for whatever troubles the country has and an enemy against which to rally their
citizens.¶ Second, since Senator Martinez is so concerned about morality of international trade, I assume
that he plans to introduce legislation imposing a similar trade and travel embargo on China,
right?¶ Third, speaking of oppressive governments, Kevin Drum makes a great point about the travel ban:¶ The trade embargo
against Cuba has long outlived whatever usefulness it might have had. It accomplishes nothing
and has turned us into an international joke. Still, it's well within the bounds of normal international relations. I don't like it,
but it's not fundamentally antidemocratic or an assault on basic freedoms.¶ The travel ban has always been in a separate class. Autocracies and
dictatorships control the movements of their subjects, but free
citizens of a liberal democracy should be able to
travel wherever they want. So whatever happens with the trade embargo, removing the travel ban should be a no-brainer. This is
America, not North Korea.
US Should lift embargo to improve Cuban human rights
Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
Although America’s previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have all failed at
achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy alternative for
promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not attempted is the exact
opposite of the approach it has taken for the past half century. Namely, the United States should
lift the embargo on Cuba and reopen diplomatic relations in order to work internationally on
improving human rights in Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely
by the United States, the human rights situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards
Cuba has been delayed long enough.
Improved relations leads to international promotion of human rights in Cuba
Amash 12-- Brandon Amash, Prospect Journal writer at UCSD (“EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO”,
Prospect Jounral of International Affairs at UCSD, 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-thecuban-embargo/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
With diplomatic relations in place, the United States may directly promote human rights in the
country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration and mediation. Providing the support,
resources, and infrastructure to promote democratic systems in Cuba could produce immense
improvements to the human rights situation in the nation. Normalizing diplomatic relations with the state
will also allow America to truly support freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, which it
cannot currently promote under the isolationist policy. Furthermore, through diplomatic relations and friendly support,
Cuba will be more willing to participate in the international system, as well as directly with the
United States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the international community as a whole, helps and supports Cuba’s economic
growth, Cuban society will eventually push for greater protection of human rights.
Lifting travel restrictions is key to more human rights
Sullivan 3/29 --- Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional
Research Office (“Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress”, March 29, 2013, FAS,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43024.pdf, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
A U.S. State Department spokesman said that it welcomes any changes that would allow Cubans
to depart from and return to their country freely. According to the State Department, Cuba’s
announced change is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in that everyone
should have the rights to leave any country, including their own, and return.86 At the same time, however,
Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson cautioned that it is uncertain yet how the changes are to be
implemented. She raised questions regarding whether Cuba would impose some controls on passports and whether everyone would be free to
travel.87 As noted above, Internet blogger Yoani Sánchez, who had been denied an exit permit for several years, received a new passport under
the new policy and in February 2013 began a multi-nation trip that brought her to the United States in mid-March 2013. A number of dissidents,
In light of
Cuba’s new travel policy, some analysts have raised the question as to whether the United States
should review its policy toward Cuban migrants, as set forth in the Cuban Adjustment Act of
1966 (P.L. 89-732), in which those Cubans arriving in the United States are allowed to apply for permanent resident status in one
however, including those political prisoners who have been released on parole, have been restricted from traveling abroad.
year.88
US trade restrictions are halting political and economic revolution – HelmsBurtan feeds
Cuban fascism and repression
Bilbao 13 Tomas Bilbao(Executive Director of the Cuba Study Group. Prior to joining the CSG, Mr. Bilbao served as Director of Transition
for Senator-elect Mel Martinez and Director of Operations for Mel Martinez for U.S. Senate),“Restoring Executive Authority Over U.S. Policy
Toward Cuba”,cubastudrygroup.org,2/13,http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7f2193cf-d2ef-45c8-91de-0b1f88d30059
Helms-Burton has failed to advance the cause of freedom and prosperity for the Cuban people. This is not
surprising, ¶ since never in modern history has there been a democratic transition in a country under a unilateral sanctions framework
as broad and severe as the one codified in Helms-Burton. Its
blanket sanctions lack ethical or moral consideration
since they indiscriminately impact all levels of Cuban society, from senior Cuban officials to democracy advocates
¶ and private entrepreneurs. While it is no secret that Cuban government policies are primarily to blame for the
Island’s economic crisis, their impact has only been exacerbated and made disproportionately greater among the most vulnerable
segments of the population by the blanket sanctions codified under Helms-Burton. In addition, these sanctions deny Cuba access
to the international financial institutions it would need to implement the type of macroeconomic
reforms that U.S. policy has sought for more than 50 years.¶ Helms-Burton preconditions the lifting of its
blanket sanctions on sweeping political change in Cuba. In practice, this “waiting game” has
strengthened the relative power of the Cuban government vis-à-vis the Cuban people while
simultaneously giving the former a convenient scapegoat for its oppressive practices and economic
blunders. ¶ Cuban blogger and democracy advocate Yoani Sanchez best illustrated the impact of the “waiting game” enabled by ¶ Helms-Burton
five decade prolongation of the ‘blockade’ [as the embargo is referred to in
Cuba] has allowed every setback we’ve suffered to be explained as stemming from it, justified
by its effects...To make matters worse, the economic fence has helped to fuel the idea of a place
besieged, where dissent comes to be equated with an act of treason. The exterior blockade has
strengthened the interior blockade.”ix¶ Former political prisoner and independent economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe agrees,
when she wrote: “The
writing that Helms-Burton’s blanket sanctions have only served “…to give the Cuban government an alibi to declare Cuba a fortress under siege,
to ¶ justify repression and to (pass) the blame for the economic disaster in Cuba.”x¶ Conditioning
our policy of resource
denial on sweeping political reforms strengthens the Cuban state because the ¶ scarce resources available in an
authoritarian Cuba have been and will continue to be allocated primarily based on political
priorities, thereby increasing the state’s relative power and its ability to control its citizens. History has ¶
shown that the negative effects of such isolation can be long lasting and counterproductive to change. During the ¶ Cold War, U.S. policy toward
Eastern Europe was not based on isolation or resource denial. Indeed, an analysis of ¶ these transitions reveals an extraordinary correlation
between the degree of openness toward former communist ¶ countries and the success of their transitions to democracies and market
economies.xi¶ In recent years, ongoing political and economic reforms in Burma suggest that U.S. policy toward this Asian country ¶ could offer
a viable model for the United States to follow in its policy approach toward Cuba. Since their enactment ¶ in 1990, Burma sanctions have allowed
for unrestricted travel by U.S. citizens and travel-related financial services.xii¶ Burma sanctions have also allowed for the export of most U.S.
goods and services and offer broad discretion to the ¶ President on which Burmese products it allows to be imported into the United States. The
broad political reforms taking place in Burma today offer a sharp contrast to the narrow reforms that have taken place in Cuba during the ¶ same
period and underscore the ineffectiveness of blanket unilateral sanctions.
Human rights - Poverty Impact
Embargo promotes poverty in Cuba – gives Castro more power
Henderson 08 – David Henderson, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and is also
associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California (“End the Cuban
Embargo”, AntiWar, 2/21/08, http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12395, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
Which brings us to the second argument for the embargo, which seems to go as follows.
By squeezing the Cuban economy enough, the U.S. government can make Cubans even poorer
than Fidel Castro has managed to over the past 48 years, through his imposition of Stalin-style socialism.
Ultimately, the theory goes, some desperate Cubans will rise up and overthrow Castro.
There are at least three problems with this "make the victims hurt more" strategy. First, it's
profoundly immoral.
It could succeed only by making average Cubans – already living in grinding poverty – even
poorer. Most of them are completely innocent and, indeed, many of them already want to get rid of Castro. And
consider the irony: A defining feature of socialism is the prohibition of voluntary exchange between people. Proembargo Americans typically want to get rid of socialism in Cuba. Yet their solution –
prohibiting trade with Americans – is the very essence of socialism.
The second problem is more practical: It hasn't worked. To be effective, an embargo must prevent people in the
target country from getting goods, or at least substantially increase the cost of getting goods. But competition is a
hardy weed that shrugs off governmental attempts to suppress it. Companies in many countries, especially Canada,
produce and sell goods that are close substitutes for the U.S. goods that can't be sold to Cuba. Wander around Cuba,
and you're likely to see beach umbrellas advertising Labatt's beer, McCain's (no relation) French fries, and
President's Choice cola. Moreover, even U.S. goods for which there are no close substitutes are often sold to buyers
in other countries, who then resell to Cuba. A layer of otherwise unnecessary middlemen is added, pushing up prices
somewhat, but the price increase is probably small for most goods.
Some observers have argued that the very fact that the embargo does little harm means that it
should be kept because it's a cheap way for U.S. politicians to express moral outrage against
Castro. But arguing for a policy on the grounds that it's ineffective should make people question
the policy's wisdom.
Third, the policy is politically effective, but not in the way the embargo's proponents would wish. The embargo
surely makes Cubans somewhat more anti-American than they would be otherwise, and it makes
them somewhat more in favor of – or at least less against – Castro. Castro has never talked
honestly about the embargo: he has always called it a blockade, which it manifestly is not. But he
has gotten political mileage by blaming the embargo, rather than socialism, for Cuba's awful
economic plight and reminds his subjects ceaselessly that the U.S. government is the instigator.
Some Cubans probably believe him.
Embargo increases poverty in Cuba
Trani 6/23 – Eugene Trani, University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University (“End the
embargo on Cuba”, Times Dispatch, 6/23/13, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnistsblogs/guest-columnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html, accessed:
7/4/13, ckr)
My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many different kinds of
groups in Havana, community projects, senior citizens, a health clinic, youth programs, artist and recording
facilities, musical ensembles, historic sites such as Revolution Square and the Ernest Hemingway house and an
environmental training facility, and not once did we hear anger toward the United States or the American people.
What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the
people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has
increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident that there is visible decline in major
infrastructure areas such as housing.
Today, there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the
significant growth of the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change
in American policy. There is also a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies,
follows our policy.
What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the
world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic
relations with Cuba. We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a
smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this
change.
Embargo toll high – affects Cuban citizens and US trade
Brown 3/16 – Jamila Brown, Social entrepreneur, political commentator, and freelance writer
skilled in international relations as it relates to human rights, development, community
empowerment, corporate social responsibility, and government accountability. Specializes in
congressional lobbying, grant and proposal writing and development, translation services,
conflict mediation, public relations, international trade and development, risk assessment
analysis, and corporate social responsibility. (“El Momento Es Ahora – End The Cuban
Embargo”, The Village, April 16, 2013, http://www.cbcfinc.org/thevillage/?p=297, accessed:
7/4/13, LR)
Even Cubans in opposition to the communist government, among them dissident blogger Yoani Sánchez,
support an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba saying the embargo is “anti-Cuban and not antiCastro.”
When I traveled to Cuba in 2010 with the US Women and Cuba Collaboration to meet with Afro-Cuban women to
discuss gender and racial equality, signs of the embargo were evident even before arriving at our destination. CubanAmerican families brought with them an abundance of “gifts” for their relatives mainly clothing and household
items many of us take for granted. On the island itself universal healthcare is juxtaposed by the lack of access to
high-quality medical equipment and medicines (most of which carry U.S. patents and therefore are
prohibited) and the benefit of free education comes at a cost of limited school supplies.
American policy is not only aberrant in comparison to the rest of the world that regularly trades with Cuba,
but it highlights the stark contradictions in U.S. foreign policy.
As Jay-Z rhymed, the United States has normalized, albeit at times contentious, relations with communist
China. Moreover, its vow to penalize Cuba for its humanitarian record brings into question its relationship with
other noted oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain whom the American government counts as close
allies.
After five decades the US-Cuban embargo has only succeeded in pushing residents of the island
deeper into poverty and with American economic constraints unable to sway Cuban political will, it is time
for a new approach to Cuba. While visiting a school in Matanzas, Cuba that trains students to become art, music,
and dance teachers in efforts to preserve Cuban culture, I was struck by the talent of this singer and composer who
performed his song “El Momento Es Ahora” (The Moment Is Now). Indeed it is.
Poverty causes nuclear war.
Caldwell 2000 - Joseph George Caldwell, PhD (Statistics) Consultant in Statistics and
Information Technology (“On Human Population, Global Nuclear War and the Survival of
Planet Earth,” Foundation Website 10/26/00, http://www.foundationwebsite.org/arti1000.htm
Accessed 7/10/13 AT)
It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above. First, human poverty
and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three billion more desperately poor people
on the planet than there were just forty years ago. Despite decades of industrial development, the number of wretchedly poor people continues to soar. The pressure for war
mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity -- the desire of one group to
acquire the land, water, energy, or other resources possessed by another. With each passing year, crowding and misery increase,
raising the motivation for war to higher levels.
Poverty kills millions and outweighs nuclear war
Abu-Jamal 98 – Mumia Abu-Jamal, prominent social activist and author, quotes James Gilligan,
American psychiatrist and author, director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system,
President of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy. (“A Quiet and Deadly
Violence,” Al-Ahram Online Sept 19 1998, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/400/in5.htm
Accessed 7/10/13 AT)
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys
human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; By
"structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy [at] the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them.
Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human
choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the
non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in
This form of
violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more
insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a
nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty
throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing,
unending, in fact accelerating, thermo nuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.)
Human rights - Trade Solves
Privatization creates competitive labor markets – that solves government exploitation
Seiglie 01 Carlos Seiglie - Associate Professor of Economics at Rutgers University,(“Cuba’s Road to
Serfdom”,cato.org,winter/2001,http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2001/1/cj20n3-6.pdf,Accessed:7/3/13,JW)
Creating a free labor market in Cuba would benefit Cuban workers by increasing their real wages and
increasing the number of jobs . The net gain to society from this change in policy would be quite large. As the
government permited workers to deal directly with foreign firms,¶ the equilibrium wage and the level of employment would rise, which ¶ would
increase production. The net gain to society is measured by the¶ difference between this increase in output and the opportunity cost of¶ the
incremental workers hired (see Harberger 1971). Stated differently, the
Cuban government’s current policy of not
permitting Cuban workers to deal directly with foreign firms imposes a deadweight loss on
society.¶ The size of the deadweight loss can be estimated as follows. Suppose that the average monthly wage received by the Cuban
government per worker employed in joint ventures is $500.00 as reported. At the current exchange rate, the average Cuban worker receives ¶
approximately $14.00 a month of this from the state. The most conservative estimate is that 75,000 workers are employed in joint enterprises.
Furthermore, suppose the uncompensated wage elasticity of hours worked (elasticity of labor supply) is 0.5. Then, assuming the supply and
demand for labor are linear, the
loss in production is $16 million dollars a month or $192 million dollars a
year below where it would be if the government permitted a competitive labor market to exist that
resulted in Cuban wages rising to $50 a month or to a $600 annual salary. The deadweight loss to society is
$170 million dollars a¶ year.¶ If competitive labor market conditions raised average Cuban wages¶ to $100 a month or to a $1,200 annual salary,
the estimates
for the loss in production from failing to enact this policy rises to $27.5 million a
month or $331 million dollars annually. This amount is twice the annual amount invested in Cuba
by foreigners over the last decade.¶ The social welfare losses from continuing the current policy
would be $268 million dollars annually. These estimates rise dramatically if we¶ assume that the wage elasticity of hours
worked is higher than 0.5. It¶ is clear that Cuba is paying a high price for regressing to serfdom. ¶ Yet, as large as this cost may be, it is only a
fraction of the total cost¶ that the government’s policy imposes on society. The reason is that for
the state to remain a
monopsonist in the labor market and, therefore,¶ to continue to extract the rents granted by having this privileged¶ position, it
has been essential for the state to deny Cubans the right to freedom of contract in the labor
market and the right to own private property. If the government enacted the economically sound
policy of massive privatization, labor markets would become competitive. The government’s monopsony
power would break down since¶ each worker would have the option of either working at the government’s lower wage—seeking individually or
collectively to buy out¶ some state-owned firm and become the recipient of the residual¶ income—or instead work for some other domestic
private firm that¶ offers them higher compensation, possibly in the form of an equity¶ stake in the enterprise. The
power of the Cuban
government to exploit the workers would therefore be eliminated. Finally, it should be¶ pointed out that since the
current policy reduces the level of employment, the marginal productivity of capital and return to capital (net of ¶ risk) is currently lower in Cuba
than it would be if the Castro government initiated the appropriate reforms.¶ Cuba
cannot develop economically if it
continues to permit only foreigners, and not its citizens, to own private property. Granting
workers the right to own property will result in an increase in saving and development of the
capital markets. Equally, reforming the capital markets so that all Cubans may borrow and lend will
lead to the development of small businesses which are so essential in achieving a high level of
development.
Empirics prove- trade helps human rights
Farrell 09- Chris Farrell, graduate of Stanford and the London School of Economics and
economics editor of Marketplace Money, (“Benefits of lifting the Cuban embargo,” 4/16/09,
https://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/benefits-lifting-cuban-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)
Farrell: I think the real lesson that you take from this is that trade is
revolutionary, commerce is revolutionary.
And trade is not just money and entrepreneurial opportunities. It also means exposing an
economy to different ideas, and ideas that are an anathema to a bureaucracy that is in power. And we have a
very good counter-example. Remember in the 1990's, the Clinton administration came under a lot of
pressure to set up trade embargoes with China because a lot of the human rights violations. And I'm
not minimizing, by the way -- I am not minimizing human rights violations in China, I am not minimizing human
rights violations in Cuba. But the administration continued the trade with China, and it was the right
move -- China is now more integrated into the global economy, there's a lot more information in that
economy, it's moving in the right direction. And so that's what I want to see trade with Cuba. I think
that's the real lesson to take here.
Human rights - Turns Foreign Policy
US International Human Rights policy key to success of foreign policy
Moravcsik 02-- Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at
Princeton University (“Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist?” in “Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign
Policy: Ambivalent Engagement” edited by Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, Lynne Rienner Publishers,
http://books.google.com/books?id=z_w3DkdSdhsC&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=Why+Is+U.S.+Human+Rights+
Policy+So+Unilateralist?+Andrew+Moravcsik&source=bl&ots=sgoPuAs4XW&sig=mIsfmf9uJ0E_FS346bhWUr14
PUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dm3dUZiJA8fe4AONk4CIAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Why%20Is%20U.S.
%20Human%20Rights%20Policy%20So%20Unilateralist%3F%20Andrew%20Moravcsik&f=false, Print, accessed
7/10/13, jtc)
One common argument for multilateral commitments is that human rights ¶ ideology is required to
legitimate U.S. foreign policy, in particular, U.S. in- ¶ ternational human rights policy. The idea
underlying such arguments is that ¶ full adherence to multilateral treaties is in “the national interest.“59 ¶ The
international promotion of human rights, we often read, expresses ¶ core U.S. values; indeed, public
opinion demands it.60 This tendency is in- ¶ dependent of partisan attachment. Patrick Anderson, Carter’s chief
speech- ¶ writer during the 1976 campaign, observed that “liberals liked human rights ¶ because it involved political
freedom and getting liberals out of jail in dic- ¶ tatorships, and conservatives liked it because it involved criticisms of
Rus- ¶ sia.“al Hence advocates of a human rights policy, liberal and conservative, ¶ tend to agree, in the words of
Jeanne Kirkpatrick (a trenchant critic of ¶ Jimmy Carter’s human rights policy), not only that “human rights
[should] ¶ play a central role in U.S. foreign policy,” but also that “no U.S. foreign ¶ policy can
possibly succeed that does not accord them a central role.“62 The ¶ Reagan administration, which began
with outright opposition to any human ¶ rights policy, except that aimed at the Soviet Union, ended up adopting ¶
many human rights policies and exploiting human rights rhetoric.63
Human rights - Turns Democracy
International Human rights enforcement strengthens democracy
Moravcsik 02-- Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and director of the European Union Program at
Princeton University (“Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist?” in “Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign
Policy: Ambivalent Engagement” edited by Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman, Lynne Rienner Publishers,
http://books.google.com/books?id=z_w3DkdSdhsC&pg=PA345&lpg=PA345&dq=Why+Is+U.S.+Human+Rights+
Policy+So+Unilateralist?+Andrew+Moravcsik&source=bl&ots=sgoPuAs4XW&sig=mIsfmf9uJ0E_FS346bhWUr14
PUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dm3dUZiJA8fe4AONk4CIAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Why%20Is%20U.S.
%20Human%20Rights%20Policy%20So%20Unilateralist%3F%20Andrew%20Moravcsik&f=false, Print, accessed
7/10/13, jtc)
A second factor contributing to U.S. ambivalence toward multilateral ¶ human rights commitments is
the exceptional stability of democratic governance inside its borders. ¶ This assertion may seem
puzzling at first glance. It is widely believed ¶ that well-established democracies are the strongest supporters of inter¶ national human rights enforcement. Most interpretations of international ¶ human rights regimes stress the spread of
democratic ideas outward from ¶ liberal societies through the actions of NGOs and public opinion, as well as ¶ the
direct exercise of state power by established democracies.ts In the broad ¶ sweep of history, to be sure,
enforcement of human rights is closely linked ¶ to the spread of liberal democracy. Publics and
politicians in established ¶ democracies have long encouraged and assisted democracy abroad, and ¶ even fought
bitter wars to uphold that very institution, both for idealistic ¶ reasons and because they tend to view democracycorrectly so, it now ap- ¶ pears-as integrally linked to world peace.17 ¶ Yet the relationship between stable
democratic governance and intemational human rights regimes is more ambivalent than this simple
account sug- ¶ gests. Established democracies are often skeptical of effective enforcement of ¶ Why Is U.S. Human
Rights Policy So Unilateralist? 351 ¶ international human rights norms. This underlying ambivalence, I have ¶ argued
elsewhere, was particularly evident at the founding moment of the ¶ major postwar international human rights
regimes under the European Con- ¶ vention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and ¶ the
UN system. In each case, the most stable and established democracies ¶ consistently opposed
effective enforcement of international norms, a posi- ¶ tion that led them into alliances with their
most repressive neighbors.
Human rights - Spreads US Interests
US Human Rights leadership spreads US interests
Griffey 11 – Brian Griffey, human rights researcher and communications specialist, who has worked for the
United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA and as an investigative journalist [“U.S.
leadership on human rights essential to strengthen democracy abroad,” The Hill, 3/18/11,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/150667-us-leadership-on-human-rights-essential-tostrengthen-democracy-abroad, accessed: 7/10/13, JK]
U.S. leadership on human rights offers clear opportunities to advance not only
international peace and security – a fundamental purpose of the U.N. – but also conjoined US political and
economic interests at home and abroad. The U.S. is presently demonstrating exactly how crucial
such involvement is as an elected member of the Human Rights Council, participating in vital negotiations on how best to
Nonetheless,
mitigate widespread abuses responding to ongoing unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, including by strategic US allies in global security and trade. As
, joining the Council has
“proven to be a good decision, because we’ve been able to influence a number of actions that we
otherwise would have been on the outside looking in.” In its first submission to the body, the U.S. likewise recognized that
Secretary Clinton expressed en route to Geneva to participate in recent talks on human rights violations in Libya
participation in the Council’s peer-review system allows the U.S. not only to lead by example and “encourage others to strengthen their commitments to human
By leading international discourse on human rights, the
U.S. will be in a better position both to advance observation of human rights abroad, and to take
on new treaty commitments that demonstrate adherence of our own system to the vaulting
principles we identify with our democracy. While the U.S. is party to more than 12,000 treaties, it has dodged most human rights
rights,” but also to address domestic human rights shortcomings.
treaties drafted since World War II through the U.N., and has ratified only a dozen. Upon transmission of four core human rights treaties to the Senate in 1978,
President Carter observed: “Our failure to become a party increasingly reflects upon our attainments, and prejudices United States participation in the development of
the international law of human rights.” The Senate ratified two of those treaties 15 years later. The others continue to languish in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, still awaiting ratification after 32 years. It likewise took the Senate almost 40 years to approve a treaty punishing genocide, after signing it in 1948
following the Holocaust. Other human rights treaties U.S. presidents have signed – but the Senate has yet to agree to – include U.N. conventions protecting the rights
of women, children, and persons with disabilities. The U.S. is the only nation in the world that hasn’t ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with the
As we watch the contours and nature of
power being reshaped in the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. must have a singular
message on human rights – both at home and abroad: Human rights go hand-in-hand with a healthy
democracy, and demand a concerted and collective effort to be upheld, especially in times of crisis. Greater
U.S. participation in U.N. human rights treaties would ensure that the country has not only a seat at the
table, but also an authoritative voice on matters vital to advancing democracy abroad, and our national
security. A welcome consequence would be a more prominent place for the human rights lens in our vision of
U.S. democracy – and perhaps a stronger resolve to ameliorate the plights of those least well off in our own society.
exception of war-torn Somalia, which lacks a functioning government and control over much of its territory.
US-Cuba Relations 1AC
Embargo and terror list kill US-Cuba cooperation
Haven, Armario, and Lee 6/21- PAUL HAVEN, Christine Armario, and Matthew Lee, Paul Have: the Associated Press
bureau chief in Havana, Cuba , Christine Armario: Education-Reporter, Associated Press, Mathew Lee: Education-Reporter, Associated Press,
(“US haltingly move to thaw?” Associated Press, Published: Friday, June 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m,
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130621/WIRE/130629941/2055/NEWS?p=4&tc=pg, Accessed: 6/28/13 MC)
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
Raul 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 publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. 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 traveled 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
happened. President
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. "These are tiny, incremental gains,
and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after
being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no
longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida,
where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba.
Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of limited
free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct
American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by CubanAmericans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved economy.
Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under Castro's
limited free-market reforms.
Several prominent
Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes.
The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by
dissidents.
Likewise, a
U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met
with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba.
To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them.
The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that
calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to
demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.
For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.
Now key to US-Cuban rapprochement – Castro’s efforts to improve econ and support from
Cuban-Americans
Padgett 7/3 - Tim Padgett, Bureau Chief of Mexico for Newsweek and of Latin America for Time (“Why This
Summer Offers Hope For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations” WLRN Miami Herald News, 7/3/13,
http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, Accessed 7/4/13, AM)
And yet, despite all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love on the Florida Straits?
Last month the Obama Administration and the Castro dictatorship started talks on re-establishing
direct mail service; this month they’ll discuss immigration guidelines. Diplomats on both sides report a
more cooperative groove.
New Diplomacy
So what happened that’s suddenly making it possible for the two governments to start some substantive diplomatic
outreach for the first time in years?
First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cuba’s threadbare economy, and the results
scared him more than one of Yoani Sánchez’s dissident blog posts. To wit, the island’s finances are held up
by little more than European tourists and oil charity from socialist Venezuela. He’s adopted
limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a
turn or two.
That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better opportunities to
bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in
Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, “ The timing is right ” for some U.S.-
Cuban rapprochement.
“Cuba is clearly in a transitionary mode,” says Saladrigas. “They need to change to reinsert themselves in
the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations.”
Changing Attitudes
Second, although the White House is still intimidated by the Cuban exile lobby, it’s had its own numbers to
ponder -- namely, poll results from South Florida’s Cuban-American community.
Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that Cuban-Americans, especially the more
moderate younger generation and more recently arrived Cubans, favor engagement with Cuba as
a way of promoting democratization there. Some polls even indicate that a majority want to ditch the
failed 51-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.
As a result, Obama -- who according to one exit poll won 48% of Florida’s Cuban vote in last year’s
presidential election, which would be a record for a Democratic candidate -- feels more elbow room for
diálogo with the Castro regime. The Administration even recently let González return to Cuba.
“The Cuban-American community in Miami is definitely changing,” says Cuban-American Elena Freyre, president
of the Foundation for Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in Miami. “It’s reached kind of a critical mass at this
point, and I think people are ready to try something different.”
Freyre notes that Obama’s appointment this year of former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the new U.S.
secretary of state is also having an impact.
“Mr. Kerry has always felt [the U.S.’s] position with Cuba made no sense,” she says. “He’s been very vocal about
thinking that if we engage Cuba we will get a lot further.” Kerry, for example, believes the U.S. should lift
its ban on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba.
The plan is key to relations—even if Castro steps down in 2018 it won’t be sufficient to solve
relations
Allam 2/25- Hannah Allam, writer for the McClatchy newspaper, (“Even if Raul Castro steps down in 2018, U.S.Cuba relations may not thaw”, 2/25/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/3253690_p2/even-if-raulcastro-steps-down.html, Accessed: 2/25/13, zs)
Cuban President Raul Castro’s announcement over the weekend that he’ll step down in
2018
after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials
contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the
regime’s reforms amount to window dressing.
By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the
Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81.
Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits
and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps
toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms
that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze
after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United
States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. “Each side is making small, subtle
moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not going to melt overnight,” said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army
colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an
end to the embargo.
Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the
two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before they’re too infirm to administer the country.
Raul Castro’s anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most
important takeaway from the president’s speech, several analysts agreed. “It doesn’t mean he’s being chosen to
succeed Raul, but it does mean they’re leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders,”
Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is “an impressive career politician,” said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban American professor
of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist
Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the party’s political
bureau and one of the Castro’s gaggle of vice presidents.
“In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the
eventual succession,” Dominguez said. “He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add
foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume.” When Castro elevated
Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an
expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba.
“It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a
formal designation as the successor,” Dominguez said. “Sure, there will be political fights in the future . Theirs is a
political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now
the frontrunner.”
The Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a public
relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of
Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing communications equipment while on a
USAID-funded democracy-building program. After meeting Castro, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that it
was time to move on from the U.S. “Cold War mentality” toward Cuba.
The State Department was publicly resistant Monday to calls for a softening of the U.S. stance toward Cuba, with a
spokesman bluntly dismissing Raul Castro’s promise to step down as not “a fundamental change” for Cuba because
it lacked concrete measures toward democratic rule. “We remain hopeful for the day that the Cuban
people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick their own leaders in
an open democratic process and enjoy the freedoms of speech and association without fear of reprisal,”
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Monday . “We’re clearly not there yet.” In the 35minute speech he gave when he was ratified for a second term as president, Raul Castro made clear that he had no
intention of moving away from his socialist roots.
“I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba. I was elected to defend, maintain and
continue to perfect socialism, not destroy it,” Castro told Parliament, according to a translation published
in news reports.
That message is why longtime Cuba observers find it hard to swallow that such an entrenched regime would
willingly push reforms that could hasten the demise of Communist Party rule. Critics say Cubans are less likely to
see a shift in U.S. policy than a rise in domestic unrest that forces change from within as Cubans grow impatient for
promised reforms. “It’s political kabuki and I’m not sure it can hold together for another five
years,” said Jason Poblete, a Cuban-American attorney in Washington and an outspoken critic of the
Castro regime.
Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding, and
distracts the US from hotspots including Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea
Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (“CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?”
3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation
only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming
authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to
exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for
instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power
is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which
will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the
U.S. maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its
coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were
criminals; this time the number could be several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee
crisis.¶ Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of
transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a
matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more
than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in
2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass
the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there
were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba
base of operation and accelerate considerably.¶ In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the
opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these
groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war
against this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt
the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the
region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to
Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater antiAmerican sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems.¶ U.S.
through Cuba,
domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the
population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But
this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear
softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These
changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)¶ The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until
The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles
off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the
resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other
government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the
he dies. The only issue is what happens then?
administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that
Africa
region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North
Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What
if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran
could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and
potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to
resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban
situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new
and the Caucasus
approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
U.S-Cuba relations key to solve TB
Juventud Rebelde ’11 Juventud Rebelde, The Newspaper for Cuban Youth. (“Cuba Denounces
US Seizure of Health Funds”, Juventud Rebelde, 2011-03-12,
http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/international/2011-03-12/cuba-denounces-us-seizure-ofhealth-funds, Accessed: July 10, 2013, SD)
Havana, March 11.— On Friday, Cuba denounced another outrage committed by the United States as part of its half-century long blockade, this
time the
seizure by US officials of more than 4 million dollars in funds allocated to Cuba by the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for the first quarter of 2011.¶ Sadly, this latest disgrace is just one
example of a long list of extraterritorial application of the US’ economic, commercial and financial blockade
against Cuba, said Orlando Hernandez, Cuban vice minister of Foreign Trade and Investment, reported Prensa Latina. ¶ The US Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control froze the funds granted to the Cuban healthcare system in January, according to a January report
by the United Nations Development Program, said Hernandez.¶ This annual financing had been allocated by the World Fund against AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria for projects in Cuba ¶ The
seizure of funds is an illegal act that seriously obstructs the
international cooperation provided by the UN system through its funds and programs. Worse still, the seized funds
are for combating and preventing pandemics that the Cuban government and international community are devoting their
greatest efforts to eradicate, said Hernandez.¶ The official statement emphasized that this unilateral measure by the US would
affect the implementation and continuation of social projects focused on vulnerable groups of the Cuban
population, as well as the universal nature of UN agencies, funds and programs.¶ The Global Fund is a unique
global public/private partnership dedicated to attracting and disbursing additional resources to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria. This partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities represents a new approach to
international health financing. The Global Fund works in close collaboration with other bilateral and multilateral organizations to supplement
existing efforts dealing with the three diseases.¶ Since its creation in 2002, the
Global Fund has become the dominant
financier of programs to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, with approved funding of US$ 21.7 billion for more than 600 programs in
150 countries. To date, programs supported by the Global Fund have saved 6.5 million lives through providing AIDS treatment for 3 million
people, anti-tuberculosis treatment for 7.7 million people and the distribution of 160 million insecticide-treated bed nets
for the prevention of malaria.¶ Global Fund financing is enabling countries to strengthen health systems by, for example, making improvements
to infrastructure and providing training to those who deliver services. The Global Fund remains committed to working in partnership to scale up
the fight against the diseases and to realize its vision – a world free of the burden of AIDS, TB and malaria.¶
TB kills millions
Global Alliance for TB Drug Development ’13 Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, The Global Alliance for
TB Drug Development (TB Alliance) was established in 2000 as a not-for-profit product development partnership to lead the search
for new TB regimens and catalyze global efforts for new TB regimens that can bring hope, and health, to millions. (“The TB
Pandemic”, TB Alliance, 2013, http://www.tballiance.org/why/the-tb-pandemic.php, Accessed: July 10, 2013, SD)¶
Tuberculosis (TB)
is a global pandemic, killing someone approximately every 25 seconds — nearly 1.4
is second only to HIV as the leading infectious killer of adults worldwide. It is among the three
greatest causes of death of women aged 15-44 and is the leading infectious cause of death among people with HIV/AIDS.¶
million in 2010 alone.¶ TB
TB is global. The WHO estimates that two billion people — one third of the world's population — are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis
(M.tb), the bacillus that causes the disease. M.tb's unique cell wall, which has a waxy coating primarily composed of mycolic acids, allows the
bacillus to lie dormant for many years. The body's immune system may restrain the disease, but it does not destroy it. While some people with
this latent infection will never develop active TB, five to 10 percent of carriers will become sick in their lifetime. ¶ TB
KILLS:¶ 1.4
MILLION PEOPLE EVERY YEAR¶ OVER 3,800 EVERY DAY¶ ONE PERSON EVERY 25
SECONDS¶ Once active, TB attacks the respiratory system and other organs, destroying body tissue.
The disease is contagious, spreading through the air by coughing, sneezing, or even talking. An estimated nine million new active
cases develop each year.¶ At any given moment, more than 12 million people around the world are
suffering from an active infection.¶ Despite enormous advances in provision of services in recent years, TB's deadly
synergy with HIV/AIDS and a surge in drug-resistant strains are threatening to destabilize gains in TB
control. While incidence is stable or falling in many regions of the world, global rates of new infections are still rising
in many navar areas where TB goes hand-in-hand with HIV/AIDS and the effects of poverty.
US-Cuba Relations – Caribbean Insecurity Impact
US Cuba relations key to Caribbean security
Birns 13 – Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director [“Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now”, COHA, 1/30/13,
http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]
The Obama Administration should
be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to
trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and remove Havana
from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as
indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of mutual respect
among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin
American and Caribbean regions.
Caribbean insecurity causes bioterrorism, LNG explosions, terrorism
Bryan 1 - Anthony T. Bryan, Director of the Caribbean Program – North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn, Senior Fellow – Council on
Foreign Relations [“Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation”, CFR, 11/21/01,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]
Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug
trafficking and terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections
have similar potential in the Caribbean. The security of major industrial complexes in some
Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial estates in Trinidad, which
host more than 100 companies that produce the majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium sulphate, and 40
percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience
has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at U.S. and
European interests in Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more critical when one
considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack
the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can
be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship
after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas issued in the
Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States. (To help
counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known
terrorists have not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean countries are as
vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of biological
weapons within national borders.
EXTENSION: Caribbean insecurity leads to corruption, violence
Brown 9 – Evan Brown, member of University of Pittsburgh, Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies [“DRUG
TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE, AND INSTABILITY IN MEXICO, COLOMBIA, AND THE CARIBBEAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY”,
Strategic Studies Institute, 10/30/09, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB968.pdf, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]
the Caribbean has been the victim of extremely imbalanced relationships with the
United States. One panelist pointed out that the islands were a minor consumer of drugs but a major transit
Panelists noted that
point to the United States; with the attendant increase in corruption and violence, the Caribbean
governments are ill-suited to combat it.
US-Cuba relations – Now key extension
Now is uniquely key to boost US-Cuba relations
Padgett 7/3- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin
America and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, for
Newsweek as its Mexico City bureau chief from 1990 to 1996, and for Time as its Latin America bureau
chief, first in Mexico from 1996 to 1999 and then in Miami, where he also covered Florida and the U.S.
Southeast, from 1999 to 2013. (“Why This Summer Offers Hope For Better US-Cuba Relations,” WLRN,
7/3/13 http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations-Accessed-7-4-13-RX)
First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cuba’s threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani Sánchez’s
dissident blog posts. To wit, the island’s finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oil charity from socialist Venezuela. He’s
adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen the
repressive screws a turn or two.
That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better opportunities
to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and chairman
of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, “The timing is right” for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement.
“Cuba is clearly in a transitionary mode,” says Saladrigas. “They need to change to reinsert themselves
in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations.”
The time is right, US and Cuba moving forward on relations
Haven 6/21 --- Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana (“Cuba, US Try Talking, but Face
Many Obstacles”, June 21, 2013, Associated Press,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-us-talking-face-obstacles19457659#.Uc2ttT7wJ9k, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)
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.
President Raul 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
publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. 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 traveled 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. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
US-Cuba relations – Current barriers to relations Extensions
US-Cuba relations low now—refusal to release Gross and political conflict
Franks 10—Jeff Franks, five-year writer for Reuters on Cuban relations and politics (“U.S.-Cuba relations under
Obama fall to lowest point”, Reuters, 3/31/10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/31/us-cuba-usaidUSTRE62U34W20100331, Accessed 7/10/13, jtc)
(Reuters) - U.S.-Cuban relations have fallen to their lowest point since Barack Obama became U.S.
president and are in danger of getting worse unless the two countries take serious steps toward
ending five decades of hostility, according to Cuba experts.¶ After a brief warming last year, both
countries appear to be falling back into old, antagonistic ways, obscuring whatever progress
that has been made and hindering further advances, the experts said this week.¶ "The past year has proven
that when it comes to U.S.-Cuba relations, old habits die hard," said Dan Erikson of the Inter-American
Dialogue think tank in Washington.¶ Obama, who took office in January 2009 and has said he wanted to recast
U.S.-Cuban relations, lifted restrictions on travel by Cuban Americans to the communist-ruled island and initiated
talks on migration issues and direct postal service.¶ Since then, Cuban Americans have flooded the island and the
two longtime ideological foes have held their first high-level discussions in years. But recent developments have
been mostly negative.¶ Cuba jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross in December on suspicion of spying
and continues to hold him without charges.¶ Cuba's government has been condemned internationally for its
treatment of opponents, including imprisoned dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died in February from a
hunger strike, and the "Ladies in White," wives and mothers of imprisoned dissidents, were shouted down by
government supporters during protest marches this month.¶ Obama rebuked the Cuban government in a
strongly worded statement on March 24, saying Cuba continues "to respond to the aspirations of the
Cuban people with a clenched fist."¶ U.S. officials think they have done enough to elicit a more positive
response from Cuba, while Cuba complains that Obama has done too little. ¶ 'GENUINE GOODWILL'¶ Miami attorney
Timothy Ashby, a former U.S. Commerce Department official in charge of trade with Cuba, said neither has done
what is necessary to overcome 50 years of bitterness.¶ "Neither government is willing to take a significant step that
would serve as a demonstration of genuine goodwill," he said.¶ Both nations have taken actions that have
not helped the fragile improvement begun by Obama.¶ Obama angered the Cuban government in
November when he responded to questions via email from dissident Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who Cuban
leaders view as at least complicit with their enemies in Europe and the United States. ¶ In February, Assistant
Secretary of State Craig Kelly provoked a bitter Cuban reaction when he met with dissidents following migration
talks with Cuban officials in Havana.¶ Cuba, in turn, has soured the political climate by harshly criticizing Obama for
his lack of action while taking little of its own.¶ Its detention of Gross, which U.S. officials say Cuba has refused to
discuss, has called into question its desire for change even among those who want better relations. ¶ In a letter last
week to Cuba's top diplomat in Washington, 41 members of the U.S. House of Representatives said the
detention of Gross "has caused many to doubt your government's expressed desire to improve
relations with the United States."¶ "We cannot assist in that regard while Mr. Gross is detained in a Cuban
prison," said the legislators, who included sponsors of pending legislation to end a U.S. ban on travel to Cuba. ¶
Appointment of Diaz Canel does not mean normalization of relations.
Alam 2013 [Hannah Alam. Hannah is a writer for the Miami herald. “Even if Raul Castro steps
down in 2018, U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw”. Miami Herald. McClatchy Newspapers.
2/25/13. Accessed: July 2, 2013.]
WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul Castro’s announcement over the weekend that he’ll step down
in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials
contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regime’s
reforms amount to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations
with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86,
and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also
would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are
hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are
hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say
will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw
Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years
later remains in place. “Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not going to melt
overnight,” said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on
bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that
the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an
acceptable successor before they’re too infirm to administer the country. Raul Castro’s anointing of
Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important
takeaway from the president’s speech, several analysts agreed. “It doesn’t mean he’s being chosen
to succeed Raul, but it does mean they’re leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the
aperture to younger leaders,” Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is “an impressive career politician,” said Jorge
Dominguez, a Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard
University. He moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher
education, a member of the party’s political bureau and one of the Castro’s gaggle of vice presidents. “In those
roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the eventual succession,”
Dominguez said. “He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been
principally a domestic-policy resume.” When Castro elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for
his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. “It is true that other
would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as
the successor,” Dominguez said. “Sure, there will be political fights in the future. Theirs is a political party, after all,
and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner.” The Castro
brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got
a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this
month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing
communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program.
US-Cuba Relations – Possibility for improvement
Current political climate in Latin America gives Obama the chance to repair ties with Cuba
and Latin America
Tisdall 3/5- Simon Tisdall, Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist. He
was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based
in Washington DC. (“Death of Hugo Chavez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America,” Guardian
Newspaper, 3/5/13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dead-us-latin-america-Accessed-627-13-RX)
Hugo Chávez's departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela, but also with
other Latin American states whose relations with Washington were adversely affected by Chávez's politics of polarisation and the Bush
administration's viscerally unintelligent reaction.
In particular, the change of leadership in Caracas could unlock the deadlock over Cuba, if the White House can summon the
requisite political will.
Possibly anticipating a transition, Washington quietly engineered a diplomatic opening with Caracas last November after a lengthy standoff
during which ambassadors were withdrawn.
Roberta Jacobson, assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, telephoned Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela's vice-president and
Chávez's preferred successor, and discussed, among other things, the restoration of full diplomatic relations.
"According to US officials, the Venezuelan vice-president offered to exchange ambassadors on the occasion of the beginning of President
Barack Obama's second term. Jacobson, in turn, is said to have proposed a step-by-step approach to improve bilateral relations, starting with
greater co-operation in counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and energy issues," Andres Oppenheimer reported in the Miami Herald.
There is much ground to make up. "Relations between the United States and Venezuela have ranged from difficult to hostile since Chávez took
office in 1999 and began to implement what he calls 21st-century socialism," wrote a former US ambassador to Caracas, Charles Shapiro.
"Chávez blamed a failed 2002 coup against him on the United States (not true), nationalised US companies, insulted the president of the United
States and blamed 'the empire' – his term for the United States – for every ill … In foreign affairs, the government actively supports the Assad
regime in Syria, rejects sanctions on Iran and generally opposes the US at every turn."
Despite such strains, economic self-interest always prevented a complete rupture. The US remained Venezuela's most important trading
partner throughout Chávez's presidency, buying nearly half its oil exports. Caracas is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the US.
In fact, the US imports more crude oil annually from Mexico and Venezuela than from the entire Persian Gulf. This shared
commerce
now provides a formidable incentive and a launch platform for a fresh start.
Whether the opportunity is grasped depends partly on Maduro, a Chávez loyalist but a reputed pragmatist with close ties to Raúl Castro in
Cuba.
Yet it depends even more on Obama,
whose first term, after a promising start, ended up perpetuating
Washington's historical neglect of Latin America. He now has a chance to do better.
The political climate seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening
dramatically. Trade between the US and Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports rose by
a massive 20% in both directions.
"We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business with Colombia [as] with Russia," an Obama
official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the world's second
largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico).
Despite this convergence, high-level US strategic thinking about the region has continued to lag, Sweig argued.
"For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America agenda – whether on issues of trade,
immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross, Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban vote' in Florida," she said.
Obama could change this dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to unpick the
Cuban problem, which continues to
colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.
"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.
A move by Obama to end travel restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded
across the region, explode old stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro regime's key
backer, she suggested.
US Should start dialogue to lift embargo—leads way to solving tensions
Duran 09-- Alfredo Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy, lawyer and an advocate for dialogue as a way to
bring regime change in Cuba (in an interview with Duran, “Possible Cuba Policy Changes Spark Debate”, PBS
Newshour, 4/8/9, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/cubadebate_04-08.html, Accessed
7/3/12, jtc)
Oh, I believe so. I believe that it's about time that the United States and Cuba starts in the process of
dialogue on this tension.¶ We have been maintaining this policy of embargo for the past 50 years, and it has
not worked. It's not working now, and it won't work for the next 50 years. It's about time that we bring about a
change. The status quo is what we need to change in Cuba.¶ We have a whole dynamic of generational changes in
Cuba. We have the historicals who are all above 80 years of age. And the only way that we're going to bring
about a future of prosperity, of liberty, of democracy in Cuba is if we can send a strong message
that the United States is not the enemy of the Cuban people, that the United States is prepared to sit
down and try to resolve the differences and hopefully, in that same table, we can have the Cuban opposition sit
down and discuss the future of Cuba.¶ We need to have national reconciliation. We need to have the people
starting to talk to each other in order to bring about a transition, a peaceful transition, towards democracy in
Cuba. I think it was helpful...
Cuba open to relations with US – recent actions show
News24 6/27/13 – News24: Breaking News. First. (“Cuba not safe for Snowden – analysts,” News24, 6/27/13,
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cuba-not-safe-for-Snowden-analysts-20130627, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)
US-Cuban relations have also been strained by the case of Alan Gross, a US government
subcontractor who was convicted of spying and sentenced in 2011 to 15 years in prison.
But now, with Raul Castro introducing timid economic reforms, a greater political pragmatism is
seen as gaining ground.
Economic reform
A recent reform made it easier for Cubans to travel abroad.
And Cuba is discussing migration-related questions with the United States, where hundreds of
thousands of Cubans have sought exile over the decades.
Cuba is on the US black list of states protecting terrorists, and the two countries have no extradition
treaty.
But that did not hamper swift co-operation in early April, when it took Havana just 48 hours to
repatriate a US couple, which had abducted its own children after losing custody over them and fled to Cuba.
The case reflects an interest in Havana in not straining relations with Washington, even if Cuba
still does not want to make "unilateral and definitive concessions" without receiving anything in
return, Lopez Levy told dpa.
Cuba wants relations with the US
Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press, (“Cuba
embargo: UN vote urges US to lift embargo,” 10/26/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/LatestNews-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargo-UN-vote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)
Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of
Palau supporting the United States.
"This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the body,
"absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on maintaining knowing that
it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire people."
"This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added,
complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character."
Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with
the United States," Rodriguez said.
American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted that
the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open
environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."
"We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused
on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.
Cuba wants relations with the US – embargo blocks it
Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press (Cuba embargo: UN vote urges
US to lift embargo, 10/26/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargoUN-vote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/10/13, ckr)
Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of
Palau supporting the United States. "This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno
Rodriguez told the body, "absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on
maintaining knowing that it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire
people." "This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez
added, complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character." Nevertheless, Cuba "will
continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with the United States, "
Rodriguez said. American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs,
insisted that the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more
open environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." "We should not
lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences, a
debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.
Baby steps towards US and Cuba increased relations
Haven 6/22/13- Paul Haven, former Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, deputy Latin America and
Caribbean editor (“Cuba, U.S. try talking, but still face many obstacles”, Daily Star,
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Jun-21/221161-cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles.ashx#axzz2XX13hW88, accessed: 6/28/13, ML)
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. President Raul 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 publically accusing them of being CIA front men. 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 traveled to Washington and
met twice with State Department officials. 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. “ These are tiny, incremental gains, and
the prospects of going backward are equally high.”
US-Cuba Relations – Tech Transfers Good
Transfer of technology would strengthen US-Cuba relationships
Lacey 9 Marc Lacey,Marc was The Times’s Mexico bureau chief, responsible for covering Mexico, Central America
and the Caribbean. From 2006 to 2010, he led the newspaper’s coverage of Mexico’s drug war, Cuba’s transition
from Fidel Castro and Haiti’s struggle for stability, among other issues in more than 30 countries large and
small.,The New York Times,
8/20/2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21storm.html?_r=0,6/27/13,MH)
The first tropical storms of the season have begun raging across the Atlantic, bringing with them all
manner of panic and potential destruction — and, behind the scenes, a little boost in United States-Cuba
relations.¶ .¶ “We’ve had a close working relationship in regard to tropical cyclones that goes back
to the ’70s and ’80s,” said Max Mayfield, who retired in 2007 after seven years as director of the National
Hurricane Center in Miami. “Any storm that goes toward Florida goes over Cuba, so we need their
observations. And they need our data from the aircraft.Ӧ With coastal communities in both countries
vulnerable, meteorology could bring the longtime adversaries closer together , especially with the
policy of increased engagement pushed by President Obama, experts argue. Wayne Smith, a former American
diplomat in Havana who is now a fellow at the Washington-based Center for International Policy, has brought an
array of American officials to Cuba in recent years to look at how Cuban disaster preparedness programs manage
to keep the number of hurricane deaths on the island so low.¶
US-Cuba Relations – Internal Links
Lifting embargo improves health and economy
Burns and Mills 1/30— Larry Birns ,Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills, COHA
Senior Research Fellow (“Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps to
trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and
remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring
terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional
policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin
American and Caribbean regions. Washington’s path towards an urgently needed rehabilitation of its hemispheric policy ought to also include
consideration of Cuba’s own pressing national interests. A
thaw in US—Cuba relations would enhance existing
security cooperation between the countries, amplify trade and commercial ties, and guarantee
new opportunities for citizens of both nations to build bridges of friendship and cooperation. For
this to happen, the Obama Administration would have to muster the audacity to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in
Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is time to replace belligerency with détente.¶ This essay argues that the embargo
against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for
expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see
that the status quo is flawed. Over
the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations
against Cuba have only served to reinforce a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality in Havana. The island also
has been subject to a relentless barrage of propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause.
These attacks include the 1997 bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly
1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals
good reason to raise defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland.¶ Besides being counter-productive,
there are also strong moral arguments for ending the embargo. From a utilitarian point of view, the
policy is objectionable
because it has brought about needless suffering without convincing evidence of praiseworthy
results. One illustration of this is what happened during what Havana calls the “special period in time of peace.” This refers to the economic
crisis, hydrocarbon energy shortages, and food insecurity that followed the collapse of Soviet Bloc (1989 – 1991) which was Cuba’s main trading
partner and the source of vital subsidies. The embargo took an especially harsh toll during the special period. According to a 1997 report Denial
of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba by The American Association for World Health: “the
U.S.
embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of
ordinary Cuban citizens.” The report also observed that “the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in sufferingand even deaths-in Cuba.” The special period, including a serious food shortage in 1993, did not lead to the country’s surrender,
but to the decisive restructuring of the agricultural sector, a number of economic reforms, and the diversification of trade.
Stronger US-Cuba Relations enhance security cooperation
Burns and Mills 1/30— Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills, COHA
Senior Research Fellow (Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 1/30/13,
http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed: 7/10/13, ckr)
The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important
initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba : immediately phase out the embargo, free
the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring
terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional
policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the
Latin American and Caribbean regions. Washington’s path towards an urgently needed rehabilitation of its
hemispheric policy ought to also include consideration of Cuba’s own pressing national interests. A thaw in
US—Cuba relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries,
amplify trade and commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both
nations to build bridges of friendship and cooperation. For this to happen, the Obama Administration
would have to muster the audacity to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba
bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is time to replace belligerency with détente.¶ This essay argues that the
embargo against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial
purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental
political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over
the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations against Cuba have only served to reinforce a
‘circle the wagons’ mentality in Havana. The island also has been subject to a relentless barrage of propaganda and
terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997
bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly
1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the
majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the
survival of their homeland.
US-Cuba ties key to economic competitiveness and preventing conflict, particularly in Latin
America
Honda 10 – Representative Mike Honda, U.S. Representative for California's 17th congressional district,
encompassing western San Jose and Silicon Valley, has served in Congress since 2001. (“Honda: Embargo
on Cuba No Longer Makes Sense”, Roll Call, May 4, 2010, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_126/45782-1.html, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
Politically, now that Latin America stands beside Cuba — as evidenced by diplomatic
reinstatements with holdouts El Salvador and Costa Rica, and the reintegration of Cuba into the
Organization for American States and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
— the U.S. risks ruinous relations with countries that see the blockade as backward. The U.S. is
already marginalized: CLACS explicitly bars U.S. participation.
The impact of this Latin tack toward insularity is not insignificant. Consider grandstanding by
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who rebuffed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s efforts to bring Brazil on Iran sanctions while courting Cuba’s leadership. Lula,
capitalizing on Cuba’s appetite for growth, proposed investments in industrial, agriculture and
infrastructure projects, including ports and hotels, and an agreement with Brazil’s oil company.
We will see more of this. The Cubans are seeking suitors. Like the Bank of the South, Latin
America’s attempt to wean countries off U.S. institutions like the World Bank, the longer we
keep Cuba at arm’s length, the more likely Brazil and others will take our place.
Removing embargo solves narcotics – cooperation key
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle
Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security Program,
Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for The Third
Way Institute, 9/16/10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)
Others have argued¶ that US¶ -¶ Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter¶ -¶ narcotics
efforts cou¶ ld benefit¶ both countries and initiate trust¶ -¶ building among the two
countries.¶ Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to¶
meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cuba’s communist government, making¶ a
change in c¶ ourse a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help¶ to move
Cuba into the 21¶ st¶ century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US¶ from
engaging Cuba and presenting the US with an opportunity to bring about¶ change in Cuba
through¶ economic and diplomatic channels.¶ By opening Cuba, the US¶ could finally achieve the
change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.
Hurricane Assistance
Hurricanes will spread oil spill
Sosnowksi 10 Alex Sosnowski, Senior Meterologist (“Hurricanes Could Spill Gulf Oil Inland”, Washington’s Blog, May 14,
2010, http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/05/hurricanes-could-spread-gulf-oil-inland.html, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)¶
AccuWeather.com's Senior
Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski points out today that hurricanes may spread
the Gulf oil inland:¶ While the oil leak disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is bad enough, many people have been wondering what could
happen if a hurricane were to slam into the region.¶ AccuWeather.com hurricane expert Joe Bastardi is concerned
by multiple threats from storms throughout the season in the Gulf of Mexico.¶ [According to predictions for an active hurricane
season this year], much of the central and western Gulf of Mexico could be one of several targets for potential multiple tropical storm and/or
hurricane landfalls this year.¶ Depending on the approach of a tropical storm or hurricane, increasing winds and building, massive
seas
would first halt containment operations.¶ Rough seas would dislodge or destroy protective booms,
rendering them useless as the storm draws closer.¶ Next, as the storm rolls through, high winds on the right flank of a
hurricane making landfall would cause some oil to become airborne in blowing spray. A storm surge could
carry contaminants inland beyond bays, marshes and beaches to well developed locations.¶ Even a
glancing blow from a hurricane passing to the west of the oil slick could be enough for winds and wave action to drive the goo nearby onshore, or
to more distant fishing and recreation areas, perhaps in foreign waters. ¶ During the age of sail, winds occasionally blew ships hundreds of miles
off course. The wind could have the same effect on the oil slick. ¶ Now, imagine several storms during the season doing the same thing. ¶
Hurricanes are powered by the heat released when moist air rises. As McClatchy notes, it is possible that the oil might slow down the hurricane
formation process in the oil spill zone itself by reducing the evaporation of seawater:¶ Oil wouldn't have an effect on the track of the storm or the
intensity, said Dennis Feltgen, spokesman for the National Hurricane Center in Miami.¶ He added, though, that a hurricane or tropical storm
might have trouble forming in or near an oil slick.¶ "Oil itself suppresses evaporation of the ocean's water," Feltgen said. "Tropical cyclones
require a good amount of that moisture for those deep thunderstorms to develop, so it could slow down the genesis process." ¶ Masters said while
there are different theories on what happens when storms and oil mix, it's difficult to tell until it happens. ¶ "It's kind of an open question," he said.
"We don't know what would happen, but if they don't clean up the oil spill by September, then we definitely could see some hurricane and oil
spill interaction.¶ In other words, it may be less likely that a hurricane could spill right in the spill zone; but hurricanes could easily form outside
of the spill zone and then interact with oil as they moved towards shore. ¶ Oil is toxic for humans, containing many different compounds:¶ Oil
contains a mixture of chemicals. The main ingredients are various hydrocarbons, some of which can cause cancer (eg. the PAHs or polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons); other hydrocarbons can cause skin and airway irritation. There are also certain volatile hydrocarbons called VOCs
(volatile organic compounds) which can cause cancer and neurologic and reproductive harm. Oil also contains traces of heavy metals such as
mercury, arsenic and lead.¶ The oil in the Gulf is also unrefined, unlike the stuff you pour into your car. It also comes from the deepest oil well
ever drilled, and it is possible that the chemistry is different at such great depths due to pressure, heat or other factors. So it is hard to tell at this
point whether it is more or less toxic than standard, refined oil (Coast Guard chemists have tested the oil, but - to date - no reports have been
made public.)¶ In addition, highly toxic dispersants have been used to try to break up the oil. See this and this. Not only are dispersants being
released underwater, but the air force is also dropping dispersants on the slick from above.¶ The official information for the dispersant reveals
problems:¶ OSHA requires companies to make Material Safety Data Sheets, or MSDSs, available for any hazardous substances used in a
workplace, and the ones for these dispersants both contain versions of a disturbing statement.¶ ***¶ Both data sheets include the warning
"human
health hazards: acute." The MSDS for Corexit 9527A [the dispersant apparently being used in the Gulf] states that
may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or
narcotic effects," and "repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells
"excessive exposure
(hemolysis), kidney or the liver." It adds: "Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE
[butoxyethanol] may result in damage to the blood and kidneys." ¶ The bottom
line is that hurricanes could very well
spread the damage from the Gulf oil spill.¶ In the best case scenario, the gusher will have been capped and some cleanup
commenced by the time the first hurricane hits the Gulf, the hurricane will be small, and the effects minimal. ¶ In the worst case scenario, a major
hurricane could spread toxic compounds inland onto crops. It could also aerosolize and then spread
toxic chemicals, causing serious health problems for local residents - especially children, the elderly and those already at
risk.
Caribbean area increasingly vulnerable to hurricanes
AOML 3 – Atlantic Oceanographic Meteorological Laboratory, AOML, a federal research laboratory, is part of
NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research , located in Miami, Florida. AOML's research spans
hurricanes, coastal ecosystems, oceans and human health, climate studies, global carbon systems, and ocean
observations,(“Hurricane Vulnerability in Latin America and The Caribbean: ¶ Normalized Damage and Loss
Potentials”,Aoml.noaa.gov,8/9/2003,http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/NHR-Cuba.pdf,6/28/13,MH)
In recent years, the
documented variability of hurricanes in the¶ region suggests the beginnings of a
more active regime. Goldenberg et al. ~2001! provide evidence from Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperatures,
atmospheric circulation patterns, and the time¶ series of Atlantic hurricanes themselves that 1995 marked a distinct
switch back to active conditions last seen in the 1940s to ¶ 1960s. If conditions persist as they did last
century, high levels of¶ hurricane activity may prevail for the next two to three decades.¶ Such a
change would be most evident in the Northern Caribbean¶ ~1.3 hurricanes per year in the active era versus
only 0.4 hurricanes per year that occurred in the quiet era of 1971–1994! and¶ the Southern Caribbean ~0.4 versus
0.2 hurricanes per year!, but¶ would not cause a significant change in Central American hurricanes ~0.2 hurricanes
per year in both regimes!.
Current foreign aid funds for hurricane relief in Cuba are stolen from the people-diverted
to government and military facilities
Tamayo 6/25-(Juan O. Tamayo,former Foreign Editor and Chief of Correspondents at The Miami Herald and for
many years the newspaper’s lead person in its coverage of Cuban affairs, a Research Associate, Miami Herald,
6.25.13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/25/3470187/priest-alleges-that-foreign-hurricane.html, 6/27/13, MH)
Outspoken Cuban priest Jose Conrado Rodriguez alleged that foreign aid sent to his native Santiago de Cuba
province after Hurricane Sandy last year was diverted to government, military and tourism
facilities but denied to private homes.¶ “The situation in Santiago is very grave” because many of the more
than 100,000 homes damaged by the storm have not been repaired, Rodriguez told El Nuevo Herald on
Tuesday. “The aid has not reached the people.”¶ Rodriguez first made the allegations in a public letter to the head of
the Communist Party in the province, Lázaro Expósito, urging him to crack down on the diversion of the aid and
“the corruption that surrounds you.”¶ “We have watched with astonishment the theft of the assistance
that so many countries sent to our people,” he wrote, “how that aid was sold … at inflated prices in flagrant
violation of the intentions of the donors.”¶ “We have watched with astonishment as government or armed forces
installations were repaired in record time, while the people remain without roofs,” he wrote in the letter, dated June
16.¶ Warning of possible civil unrest, he added, “We are witnesses to the people’s frustrations, to their desperation
and impotence, to a … threatening silence that makes us think that it could explode at any time with justified and
uncontrollable fury.”¶ Rodriguez told El Nuevo that foreign diplomats who visited him after Sandy noted “a very
high degree of exasperation” in the city of Santiago de Cuba, due to host the July 26 celebrations this year that mark
the start of the Castro revolution.¶ Sandy pummeled eastern Cuba in October, killing 11 people and
causing $2 billion in damages. Many of the homes belonging to 100,000 families remain without
roofs or the families are jammed into the one or two rooms that have roofs, Rodriguez said.¶
Plan would innovate new hurricane prevention and precaution technologies
Lacey 9 Marc Lacey,Marc was The Times’s Mexico bureau chief, responsible for covering Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean. From 2006 to 2010, he led the newspaper’s coverage of Mexico’s drug war, Cuba’s
transition from Fidel Castro and Haiti’s struggle for stability, among other issues in more than 30 countries large and
small.,The New York Times,
8/20/2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21storm.html?_r=0,6/27/13,MH)
Ivor van Heerden, a hurricane expert at Louisiana State University who visited Cuba last year, contends that
American policies should be loosened to allow a transfer of technology to Cuba to help bolster
its oceanographic and weather data collection. The United States could learn from Cuba’s
evacuation plans, post-disaster medical support and citizen disaster education programs, he said.¶ “
Cuban Embargo fails – Hurricane impacts are devastating
Haass 09 – Richard N. Haass, Richard N. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations (“Forget About
Fidel”, The Daily Beast, 3/6/2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html,
accessed: 6/28/13, ckr)
There are signs that change may finally be coming to Cuba, 50 years after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to
power. In a major shakeup, Raúl Castro, Fidel's brother, fired several high-level officials last week. While Raúl did
more to raise expectations than living standards in his first year as president, he may now be positioning the
government to go beyond the tentative reforms so far introduced. Then again, he might merely be installing loyalists
who share his view that the regime should keep a tight grip on society.
What's more certain is the need for change in Cuba. Last year's hurricanes cost the already poor
island nation $10 billion, 20 percent of its GDP. The global economic slowdown has dampened
tourism. The population of 11 million is shrinking, in part because of a housing shortage that's leading many
families to have fewer children. Cuba's people, the lion's share of whom were born after 1959, face a
future that promises little in the way of either prosperity or freedom.
Some American conservatives maintain that all this is reason enough for the United States to persist in its policy of
ignoring Cuba diplomatically and sanctioning it economically. At least in principle, one could argue that the
revolution is running out of steam and that regime change from within may finally be at hand. The problem is that
this argument ignores Cuban reality. The country is not near the precipice of collapse. To the contrary, the
intertwined party, government and military have matters well in hand. The population, ensured basic necessities
along with access to education and health care, is neither inclined to radical change nor in a position to bring it
about.
The American policy of isolating Cuba has failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more diplomatic missions
than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic embargo working. Or worse: it is working, but
for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of others that are only too happy to help supply Cuba with food,
generators and building materials. Those in Congress who complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought
to consider that the embargo deprives thousands of American workers of employment.
The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also works—perversely enough—to bolster the Cuban regime. The U.S.
embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excuse—the country's economic travails are due to U.S. sanctions,
they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and investment also helps the
government maintain political control.
There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country is
changing. The question is whether the United States will be in a position to influence the direction and pace of this
change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which the existing regime gives way to a repressive regime of a
different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a humanitarian crisis that prompts hundreds of
thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States. Rather, Washington should work to shape the
behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country becomes more open politically and economically.
Fifty years of animosity cannot be set aside in a stroke, but now is the time for Washington to act. Much of the
initiative lies with the new president. President Obama, could, for example, make good on campaign promises to
allow Cuban-Americans to freely remit funds to relatives in Cuba and to visit them regularly, and could loosen
travel restrictions for others as well. (Some of these measures can be found in legislation currently working its way
through Congress.) Obama could also initiate technical contacts. Each country already maintains an "interests
section," a small embassy by another name, in the other's capital. They also share information about weather. But
they could resume exchanges on such common challenges as migration and drug interdiction, and initiate them on
homeland security and counterterrorism.
Famine
Cuban embargo prevents food supply and results in massive disease outbreaks
Kirkpatrick 96 – Anthony Kirkpatrick, After nearly twenty years of dedicated service to the University of South Florida
College of Medicine in Tampa, Anthony F. Kirkpatrick, MD, PhD, left to establish the RSD / CRPS Treatment Center and
Research Institute, the world's first institute of its kind, dedicated exclusively to RSD / CRPS. The Institute opened its Center in
February 2008 and is headquartered in Tampa. (“Role of the USA in shortage of food and medicine in Cuba”, “The
Lancet Vol. 348”, 11/30/1996, http://www.cubasolidarity.net/Kirkpatrick-lancet.pdf, accessed: 6/27/13, ckr)
The US Government acknowledges that there is no exemption for food items; it simply notes that
there are “ample suppliers” of foodstuffs elsewhere, that Cuba receives donations of food, and that the food
shortages are not due to the embargo, but, rather, are caused by the “Regime’s failure to alter Cuba’s inefficient
centralized economic system”.10 This argument rings hollow. First, even if Cuba can buy food elsewhere, the
inclusion of food in the US trade embargo remains in violation of international law. Second, a small amount of food
is donated by US organisations,4,10 but that is a poor substitute for removing provisions that prohibit its sale. Third,
although Cuba can buy food elsewhere, it must often pay higher transportation costs than would be the case with the
nearby USA. Fourth, in 1992, the US Government ignored the warning of the American Public
Health Association that the tightening of the embargo would lead to an abrupt cessation of
supplies of food and medicine to Cuba resulting in widespread “famines”.4 In fact, 5 months after
the passage of the Act the worst epidemic of neurological disease this century due to a food
shortage became widespread in Cuba. 12 More than 50 000 of the 11 million inhabitants were
suffering from optic neuropathy, deafness, loss of sensation and pain in the extremities, and a
spinal disorder that impaired walking and bladder control.11–13 Furthermore, as recently as November,
1995, WHO reported more people with neurological disease in Cuba due to malnutrition.14 In June,
1993, a delegation sponsored by the American Public Health Association travelled to Cuba to
assess the impact of the embargo on the public health of the Cuban people. The Association’s report
notes that the policies of the Castro regime give a high priority for health care, which has contributed to a large
reduction in infant mortality and improvements in health. However, the Association found that the
tightening US embargo, through the enactment of the CDA, has been associated with a decline in
the health of the Cuban people.15 The US Government often speaks of violations of human rights
in Cuba. Such claims should perhaps be viewed against the background of an Amnesty International report, which
catalogues human-rights abuses in the USA, such as torture, ill-treatment of prisoners, and excessive use of force by
police.16 In addition, it should be noted that Washington has been deemed to have exaggerated Cuba’s abuses of
human rights, to the extent of codifying such claims into US law.17 These reports should be borne in mind
when the US blockade of food and medicine to Cuba is considered.
Embargo causes malnutrition in Cuba
Amnesty International 09 – Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than
150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights (“The US Embargo against Cuba”, Amnesty
International, 2009 (no spec. date), http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f847a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system and on the right to
health of Cubans during the 1990s has been documented in a 1997 report by the American
Association for World Health (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on
the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to Cuba, the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed
particularly to malnutrition affecting especially women and children, poor water quality, lack of
access to medicines and medical supplies, and limited the exchange of medical and scientific
information due to travel restrictions and currency regulations. The AAWH found that “a humanitarian
catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support
for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive health care to all of its citizens… Even so, the
U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical supplies has wreaked havoc with the
island's model primary health care system.”46
During the first three decades of the embargo, the export of medicines was allowed for “humanitarian” reasons
only. In 1992, with the passage of the CDA, the sales of medicines were exempt from the embargo. However,
access to medicines became virtually impossible for Cuba. Every export of medicine required that “the President of
the USA certify, through on-site inspections approved by the President, that all components of a shipment of
medical products to Cuba were used for the purpose intended.” 47 The tightening of the US embargo
during the 1990s exacerbated the economic crisis in Cuba as the country had lost the economic
support from the Soviet Union.48 This affected the capacity of the Cuban health system to
deliver to the population the same standards of health care as before the economic crisis
Lack of imports due to the embargo means Cuba doesn’t have enough food
Garfield 99 – Richard Garfield, Richard Garfield, nurse and epidemiologist, is professor of clinical international
nursing at Columbia University. He is the co-chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American Public Health
Association and director of a PAHO/WHO collaborating centre at Columbia University. He worked in the ministry
of health in Nicaragua. (“The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Well-being,” Relief and Rehabilitation
Network Paper, November 1999,
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/The%20Impact%20of%20Econmoic%20Sanctins%20on%20Health%20
abd%20Well-Being.pdf, accessed: 7/2/13, amf)
Cuba About
half of all proteins and calories in Cuba were imported prior to sanctions. Importation
of foodstuffs declined by about 50 per cent from 1989 to 1993 and milk production declined by 55
per cent from 1989 to 1992 due to loss of imported feed and fuel. Reduced imports and a shift
toward lower quality protein products are significant health threats: a daily glass of milk used to
be provided to all children in schools and daycare centres through age 13; it was subsequently
provided only up to age six.
It is estimated that sanctions on Cuba create a ‘virtual tax’ of 30 per cent on all imports. These
have higher purchase and shipping costs because they have to be purchased from more expensive
and more distant markets.
Embargo interferes with Cuba’s food and economy
Jolly 8- Schona Jolly, international
human rights and equalities lawyer and writer, (“Of
Demons and Hurricanes : Cuba's Embargo Must Be Lifted Immediately,” 2/08,
http://www.cubaabsolutely.com/AboutCuba/article_economic.php?id=Of-Demons-andHurricanes, 7/3/13, CAS)
A 2007 report [PDF] by the UN special rapporteur on the right to food highlights the devastating
impact that the embargo has had on Cuba's food production and importation. The report states, by
way of example:
Over 80% of dairy imports to Cuba consist of milk powder for use in the social programme, imported from New
Zealand and the European Union. Rice is shipped from China and Vietnam, taking 45 days to reach
Cuba. By way of comparison, it would cost one-third of the price to ship from the United States
and would only take two days. Increased transaction costs also affect the import of food.
US products must be paid for in advance in cash or through letters of credit drawn on third country banks. The
[Cuban] government estimates that incremental (transaction) costs for food and agricultural imports
incurred in 2006 due to the embargo amounted to $62.8m.
An embargo "to bring democracy" is a tool of warfare, and needs to be recognised as such. Cuba, however, is
dealing with enough of her own demons at present. Whirling winds have wreaked a war-like devastation on a land
that has stayed determined to seek its own course through history. It is high time the embargo is lifted, not
just for 90 days, but for good. According to the Cuban government, the embargo has cost the Cuban
economy over $89bn since its introduction and resulted in $258m of losses in the food sector
from May 2006 to April 2007.
Internet Adv 1AC
Government conditioning restricts internet access to .01% of the population
TAMAYO 6-7 – JUAN O. TAMAYO, Writer at The Miami Herald, Former: Andean Bureau Chief at Miami Herald, Foreign Editor at
Miami Herald, Latin desk editor at UPI Foreign desk, Marquette University, School of Journalism (“Cuba’s new Internet locales remain
conditioned”, Miami Herald, 6/7/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/07/3439494/cubas-new-internet-locales-remain.html, Accessed:
6/27/13 MC)
Users marveled at the relatively high speeds of the connections and their access to some Web pages
once blocked by the government. Others, like Radio/TV Marti, the U.S. government broadcaster that transmits to the island,
remain blocked.
But access to the Web at the “cyberpuntos” remained tightly conditioned — even chillingly so.
Users must show their national ID cards and sign an agreement that they will not use the service
for anything “that could be considered … as damaging or harmful to the public security” — a
vague term that presumably can include political dissidence.
And when users try to send out any attachments, ETECSA’s own NAUTA interface system
greets them with a pop-up window that certainly appears to be a reminder that Big Brother is
watching.
“When you send information to the Internet, other people may see what you are sending. Do you wish to continue?” the message says. Click yes
or no. The pop-up window is marked “Internet Explorer” and is known to be a real if infrequent message generated by that search engine. Yet
several Cuban cybernauts said they never see that message when they use Internet cafes in Havana’s tourist hotels. Havana
journalist
and blogger Ivan Garcia said he didn’t know what to make of the message. “It would be really sloppy for the
authorities” to allow the message to pop-up, he said, “although the whole world knows
everything can be monitored here.”
Most Cubans believe that the government’s security apparatus watches over virtually all Internet
traffic into and out of the island, reads any private emails and steals passwords so that it can hack
into accounts abroad, such as Gmail, Facebook and Twitter.
Most of the complaints so far against the 118 new Web access points — opened on Cuban ruler Raúl Castro’s 82nd
birthday — have been not about the possible monitoring but about the high costs.
The $5 charged for one hour of surfing on the World Wide Web amounts to a week’s salary for the average government employee. Surfing the
Cuba-only “Intranet” costs about 70 U.S. cents and access to a Cuban email account goes for about $1.65 per hour.
Cubans have one of the worst Internet access rates in the Western Hemisphere, with only 4 percent
saying they had access to the Web and email in a public opinion survey by the International
Republican Institute taken in January and February.
The International Telecommunications Union ranked Cuba in last place in Latin America and the
Caribbean in 2011 when measured by broadband subscribers per 100 people and secure Internet
servers for every 1 million people.
Scenario 1 is the Public Sphere:
Without internet the Cuban public sphere is bound to regime control
Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( “Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba”, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency
of Political Systems, January 2011
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)
The forms and degree of the limits various authoritarian regimes impose on the public
articulation of voice vary, but no matter which regime is in question, the regime's reach is largely
limited to the territorial boundaries of the nation-state in which it exercises power. As traditional
media, too, were bound to the nation-state, widening the public sphere hence needed to be thought
of as an "opening," "thaw," "decompression" or "liberalization" of the regime (e.g. O'Donnnell/Schmitter 1986: 26).
The Internet era forces us to rethink this understanding. The inherently trans-border
character of web-based communication and media technologies challenges established "fil- ters" to
access and patterns of regulation in any state. However, our thesis is that the political impact is
all the stronger the more a state is at odds with political pluralism and the more it relies on
control over media and the public sphere in the national arena.
Cuba certainly has been such a case ever since the early years after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, when the government of Fidel Castro adopted socialism as the country's political model. While the
regime survived the collapse of Soviet-style socialism in Eastern Europe, it was reluctant to take up Internet-based
technologies. The island became the last of all Latin American countries to join the Internet, having done so as
recently as 1996 (Valdes 1997). Since then, computer use and digital communication technologies have
spread, but control- ling and limiting access to the Internet and web-based media has been a crucial concern
for state authorities.
Its condition as a latecomer to the Internet, combined with the overarching continuity of
the political regime, makes Cuba an ideal case for a diachronic empirical comparison, an ap- proach often underestimated in comparative politics.
compare civil society dynamics in the pre-Internet period-Cuba in the early to
mid-1990s, when the Cold War alignment had already become history but web-based
technologies did not yet have a major presence on the island-with the dynamics of a decade later,
when web-based media entered the island for the first time. Empirically, this study is based on approximately one
Thus, this paper sets out to
dozen field trips over the past two decades that included numerous formal and informal interviews both with actors from within Cuba's political
establishment and those outside of it. These interviews are combined with an intensive study of publications and declarations, both in print and on
the web.
Following this introduction, I will analyze Cuba's
civil society debate of the 1990s, which
focused on the quest for associational autonomy as a means of pluralization within the statesocialist context. Next, I sketch Cuba's late and reluctant acceptance of the Internet and the state's
efforts to assure itself a maximum amount of control. I then turn to the different ways in which societal actors
have since come to use digital and web-based media to raise their voice and claim participation as one of their rights of
citizenship. The paper concludes with a discussion about the democratizing potential of these new civil society dynamics.
Web-based communication inherently challenges state regulation- widen the public sphere
Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( “Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba”, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency
of Political Systems, January 2011
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)
The forms and degree of the limits various authoritarian regimes impose on the public
articulation of voice vary, but no matter which regime is in question, the regime's reach is largely
limited to the territorial boundaries of the nation-state in which it exercises power. As traditional
media, too, were bound to the nation-state, widening the public sphere hence needed to be thought
of as an "opening," "thaw," "decompression" or " liberalization" of the regime (e.g. O'Donnnell/Schmitter
1986: 26).
The Internet era forces us to rethink this understanding. The inherently trans-border
character of web-based communication and media technologies challenges established "fil- ters" to
access and patterns of regulation in any state. However, our thesis is that the political impact is
all the stronger the more a state is at odds with political pluralism and the more it relies on
control over media and the public sphere in the national arena.
Cuba certainly has been such a case ever since the early years after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, when the government of Fidel Castro adopted socialism as the country's political model. While
the regime survived the collapse of Soviet-style socialism in Eastern Europe, it was reluctant to take up
Internet-based technologies. The island became the last of all Latin American countries to join the
Internet, having done so as recently as 1996 (Valdes 1997). Since then, computer use and digital
communication technologies have spread, but control- ling and limiting access to the Internet and
web-based media has been a crucial concern for state authorities.
Its condition as a latecomer to the Internet, combined with the overarching continuity of
the political regime, makes Cuba an ideal case for a diachronic empirical comparison, an ap- proach often
underestimated in comparative politics. Thus, this paper sets out to compare civil society dynamics in
the
pre-Internet period-Cuba in the early to mid-1990s, when the Cold War alignment had already
become history but web-based technologies did not yet have a major presence on the island-with
the dynamics of a decade later, when web-based media entered the island for the first time.
Empirically, this study is based on approximately one dozen field trips over the past two decades that included
numerous formal and informal interviews both with actors from within Cuba's political establishment and those
outside of it. These interviews are combined with an intensive study of publications and declarations, both in print
and on the web.
Following this introduction, I will analyze Cuba's civil society debate of the 1990s, which
focused on the quest for associational autonomy as a means of pluralization within the statesocialist context. Next, I sketch Cuba's late and reluctant acceptance of the Internet and the state's
efforts to assure itself a maximum amount of control. I then turn to the different ways in which societal
actors have since come to use digital and web-based media to raise their voice and claim participation as
one of their rights of citizenship. The paper concludes with a discussion about the democratizing potential of these
new civil society dynamics.
Technological management of society objectifies human life
Rayner 01- Tim Rayner (PhD) teaches Philosophy for Change and mentors at the Centre for Sustainability Leadership, Sydney, Australia
He is the writer of the award-winning short film, ‘Coalition of the Willing’ (2010), “Biopower and Technology: Foucault and Heidegger’s Way
of Thinking” Contretemps 2, May 2001, http://sydney.edu.au/contretemps/2may2001/rayner.pdf
The themes and concerns that define the argument of the present work derive from Heidegger and Foucault’s
respective interpretations of the relationship between technology and power in the contemporary age. Heidegger
and Foucault share the view that individuals in modern society are to some extent determined by
technological structures pervading that society. Both develop the idea that the basic character of
these structures is to objectify and order the forces of life. Both argue that the view of human
beings as a kind of manipulable resource is essential to the technological management of society,
and both suggest that liberation from this state of affairs requires a radical renegotiation of the
nature of human being as presently construed. Given these parallels, it is interesting to consider how far we
might co-ordinate Foucault and Heidegger’s accounts. To what extent does Foucault’s critique of modern biopower
recapitulate Heidegger’s critique of modern technology?
Embargo prevents Cuban internet access
Miroff 12 –Nick Miroff, contributer to NPR, has written for the Washington ost, Master’s degree in
Journalism from Berkeley, Bachelor’s degree in Spanish and Latin American literature at the University
of Califorina at Santa Cruz (“How the US keeps Cuba offline”, Global Post, June 27 2012,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/120627/us-embargo-google-analytics-cubaninternet-access, Accessed: 7/10/13, EH)
HAVANA, Cuba — Fear not, web-deprived Cubans. The US government has a new plan to breach the firewall of communist censorship and let
free data flow through.
First though, it needs to block your access to some really cool software.
That was the scrambled message of the past week. First, Cubans found themselves barred from using Google Analytics — a free, web-traffic
analysis tool — by the US trade embargo. A few days later, they learned that American officials are spending millions on new programs to boost
“the free and decentralized flow of information” to the island.
A reminder, once more, that the Great Software Maker of the North giveth, and also taketh away.
Both developments may end up deepening the frustrations of would-be web users in Cuba, who are often trapped between an internet-fearing
government and US policies that seem to be making matters worse.
Compared to other nations in the region, Cuba is a cyber desert , a technological Brigadoon stuck in the pre-AOL era, where
millions of young people have never even been online. A limited number of Cubans manage to connect to the internet through their
workplaces or by paying a premium for exasperatingly slow dial-up connections, but they web browsing a test of patience and videostreaming an impossib[le]ility.
Cuban government statistics show that the island of 11 million has the lowest internet penetration rate in the Western Hemisphere. Though
mobile phone ownership is growing fast and now tops 1.3 million, that also remains the lowest in Latin America.
Even Cubans who have the money aren’t allowed to contract internet service at home. The Cuban government insists there isn’t enough
bandwidth to go around, yet it hasn’t said a word about the status of a much-touted undersea fiber-optic cable to Venezuela that was supposed to
fix the problem when it was completed last year.
Internet-starved islanders who do manage to get online face an obstacle course set by both the Castro government and Washington, which directs
American technology companies to enforce sanctions on popular software.
Cuban web users are blocked from the chat service Microsoft Messenger, and have been cut off from sites such as Sourceforge, a source-code
repository used by software developers. Google Earth and Google Toolbar were already denied to Cubans before the company announced last
week that it was adding Google Analytics to the blacklist.
No matter that the software is free and no money changes hands between Google and Cuba. “As a US company, we comply with US
export controls and trade sanctions that limit us from offering certain services in certain countries,” a Google spokesperson told
AFP.
The Cuban government called it “outrageous censorship.”
For its part, Cuba blocks access on its servers to US-funded broadcaster Radio Marti, along with online classifieds site Revolico.com and voiceover-internet services such as Skype.
Other sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are accessible from Cuba, though cumbersome to use. And Cuba remains a black hole to other
corners of the web, like travel sites — even those not based in the US — which often don’t list the country as a destination, even though the
major European and Latin American airlines fly to Havana.
Some US products, such as the iPad, don’t even include Cuba as one of the countries for first-time users to register.
If the software sanctions are meant to punish the Cuban government and its one-party socialist state, it’s not clear that they achieve anything
more than making cyber orphans of ordinary Cubans.
If anything, the US restrictions seem to play into arguments made by Cuban government hardliners who seem eager to bypass the internet and
create a closed, Orwellian copy, free from outside contamination.
Internet Solvency
Developing internet technology can circumvent state censorship
Kalathil & Boas 01- Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil
society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S.
Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washingtonbased programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley
and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of
voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas, The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes:
China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution,
Moreover, the experiences of China and Cuba are likely to shed light on other authoritarian
and semi-authoritarian regimes’ strategies regarding the Internet. In the Middle East, several
governments have begun to promote widespread Internet access but remain even more
committed than the Chinese to censoring content available on the World Wide Web. In Asia, the
strictest regimes have mimicked Cuba in selectively granting access to the medium. Almost all
of
these regimes are attempting to benefit from proactive approaches toward the Internet,
harnessing technology for economic development, e-government, and other purposes. Singapore
and the United Arab Emirates stand out in their respective regions as success stories of proactive
Internet strategy, and many of their neighbors are looking to them as examples to emulate.
Ongoing research at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will place Cuba and China
in comparative perspective with a wider variety of authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes
in Asia and the Middle East. In doing so we hope to reach more generalizable conclusions about
the impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule.
In the long term, of course, we can only speculate about the continued viability of state
strategies for controlling the Internet. Internet technology will continue to evolve over time, as
will the myriad nontechnological factors that shape the environment in which Internet use takes
place; as such, our observations act as snapshots of moving targets. Authoritarian regimes will
have to continually adapt their measures of control if they want to counter effectively the
challenges of future variations in information and communication technologies. It is quite
possible that this task will prove too difficult and that use of ICTs will eventually play a role in
the democratic revolution that has been so widely predicted. Over time, however, authoritarian
regimes have weathered innumerable challenges posed by changing technologies, and they may
prove up to the current challenge as well.
Internet can prompt the move toward liberal political systems
Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more
than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers’ research focus is on
science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change,
environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. (“ Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age”, CNAS, JUNE 2011,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
The Internet does not automatically promote democratization; Iran’s Twitter revolution led to no reforms while
Egypt’s Facebook revolution toppled the Mubarak regime. Furthermore, the technology itself is agnostic; the same online Experts from the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have estimated that Egypt’s fiveday Internet shutdown cost the country at least 90
million dollars, a figure that does not include e-commerce, tourism or other businesses that rely on Internet connectivity. tools
that
empower dissidents can aid dictators in their oppression. In the short run, at least, a freer Internet
does not automatically translate into more liberal political systems.
Yet some case studies do demonstrate the Internet’s profound potential: that access to an open
Internet can help countries slide away from authoritarianism and toward democracy. Events in
Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere suggest that the Internet and related technologies (such as
SMS) have indeed served as critical tools for organizing protests, spreading information among
dissident parties
and transmitting images and information to the outside world – some of which moved onto
satellite
television channels, further boosting their influence.64 And while experts continue to argue about
the precise effect, they tend to agree that social media tools have made revolutions in the Middle
East easier and speedier than they would have otherwise been.65Perhaps the most compelling link
between a free Internet and democratization is also the simplest: Both dissidents and dictatorships abroad seem to
believe that the Internet can have a transformative role, and they act on that basis. Dictatorships
expend enormous time and resources to clamp down on online activity, and more than 40
countries actively censor the Internet or engage in other forms of significant Internet repression.66
Meanwhile, millions of individuals use proxy servers and other circumvention and anonymity tools
to evade censorship and monitoring. During the 2009 presidential campaign in Iran, for example,
both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Mir-Hussein Mousavi, cited the Internet
as a tool through which the liberal opposition could mobilize support.67 It is unlikely they were
both wrong. While
the effect of the Internet will depend on local conditions, there are indeed
reasonable grounds for believing that a free Internet can help empower individuals to press for
more liberal political systems.
Precedent for Internet freedom in place
Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more
than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers’ research focus is on
science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change,
environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. (“ Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age”, CNAS, JUNE 2011,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
Principle 1: embrace a Comprehensive approach
U.S. policymakers should incorporate Internet freedom into their decision-making (especially
on cyber security and economic diplomacy issues); convene private sector professionals,
export controls experts, diplomats and others to explore new ways of promoting Internet freedom;
and use traditional diplomacy to promote Internet freedom.
Principle 2: build an International Coalition to Promote Internet Freedom
The U.S. government should convene a core group of democratic governments to advocate Internet
freedom in key international fora; urge governments to encourage foreign companies to join the Global Network Initiative (GNI);
and ensure that the Secretary of State gives her next major address on Internet freedom in a foreign country, possibly in Europe alongside key
European Union (EU) commissioners.
Principle 3: Move beyond Circumvention Technologies
The U.S. government should continue to fund technologies other than firewall-evasion tools,
including those that help dissidents maintain digital security, ensure mobile access and reconstitute websites after a cyber
attack. The U.S. government should offer financial awards to foster technological innovation, require that
any online tool receiving U.S. funding be subjected to an independent security audit and expand the
sources of technology funding to include foreign governments, foundations and the private sector.
Principle 4: Prioritize Training The State Department, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), should
continue to foster Internet freedom through targeted training programs, including education on
online safety.
Principle 5: lead the effort to build International norms
The U.S. government should promote a liberal concept of Internet freedom in all relevant fora, and reject
attempts by authoritarian states to promote norms that restrict freedoms of information
and expression online. It should also pursue an international transparency initiative to encourage
governments to publicize their policies on restricting online information.
Principle 6: Create economic Incentives to support Internet Freedom
U.S. officials should
continue to articulate the economic case for Internet freedom, backed wherever possible by solid
quantitative evidence, and push for Internet censorship to be recognized as a trade barrier.
Principle 7: strengthen the Private sector’s Role in supporting Internet Freedom Congress should adopt laws that
prohibit American corporations from giving autocratic governments the private data of dissidents
when the request is clearly intended to quash legitimate freedom of expression, and that require companies to periodically
disclose requests it receives for such data to the U.S. government.
U.S. officials should continue to urge companies to join the GNI, but also encourage them to develop broad
unilateral codes of conduct consistent with the GNI. They should also publicly highlight specific business practices,
both positive and negative.
Principle 8: Reform export Controls
The U.S. government should relax controls on technologies that would permit greater online
freedom
while protecting American national security, and educate companies on the precise nature of export
control restrictions so that companies do not overcomply and deny legal technologies to dissidents
abroad. In addition, we offer several recommendations for technology companies, including providing
dissidents basic technical assistance to better use built-in security functions for software and
hardware; better informing users and the public about who may access the data they control and under what conditions; increasing corporate
transparency about foreign government requests; and advocating for increased Internet freedom.
US can connect Cuban- little squo public access
Mirof 10— Nick Miroff, Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost., Miroff was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a
Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech. His story in the Washington Post on coal miners and painkiller
addiction in Appalachian southwest Virginia was the recipient of a 2008 Nancy Dickerson Award for Excellent in Reporting on Drug and
Alcohol Problems. In 2006, he traveled to Northern Manitoba as part of a radio series on climate change, “Early Signs: Reports from a Warming
Planet” that won a 2006 George Polk Award. Miroff grew up in Albany, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American
literature at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. (“Cuba: No deal
with US telecoms”,globalpost.com, October 18, 2009 17:11Updated May 30, 2010 13:11,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/cuba/091018/cuba-says-no-deal-us-telecoms?page=0,1, Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)
Cuba currently ranks among the least-connected countries in the hemisphere, with 12.6 phones per 100
people, according to United Nations data. A limited number of Cuban professionals have access to the internet, but mostly in their workplaces,
where communications are often monitored. An hour of achingly slow web access at a tourist hotel can cost more than a week’s salary for the
average Cuban worker.
Cuban mobile phone communications aren’t much better. Though President Raul Castro
overturned a ban on ordinary Cubans owning mobile phones last year, rates for local calls are roughly $0.50
per minute. A call to the U.S. costs more than a dollar a minute, and there’s little alternative for keeping
in touch with relatives in Miami or Spain, since the popular voice-over-internet program Skype was blocked by the Cuban government
over the summer.
The Obama administration’s move gave permission to American telecommunications companies
to install fiber-optic cable and satellite links between the United States and Cuba. It also allows
for roaming agreements between U.S. and Cuban mobile phone providers, while enabling U.S. residents to
pay for American satellite radio and television services for Cubans, which are generally illegal on the island.
It’s possible- Cuban internet Guerillas circumvent internet blocking
WILSON 01- SCOTT WILSON, Scott Wilson is the chief White House correspondent for the Washington Post. Previously, he
was the paper’s deputy Assistant Managing Editor/Foreign News after serving as a correspondent in Latin America and in the
Middle East. He was awarded an Overseas Press Club citation and an Interamerican Press Association award for his work abroad.
For his coverage of the Obama administration, he received the 2011 Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the
Presidency and the 2012 Aldo Beckman Award given by the White House Correspondents’ Association. He joined the Post in 1997.
(“Cuban Guerrillas Scale the Cyber Walls” WASHINGTON POST, January 01, 2001, http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/01/business/fi-7096,
Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
After watching the flow of information help fuel the Soviet Union's disintegration, the Cuban
government has clamped down on Internet technology even as the number of users throughout
the rest of Latin America doubles each year. Controlling what Cubans read and hear has been part of President Fidel
Castro's rule from the beginning. In theory, Cubans have access only to state-run newspapers and government television and radio, but many
listen regularly to foreign news broadcasts.
That the Internet poses a serious threat to the information monopoly has not eluded the
leadership: Cuba has one of the lowest per capita rates of computer and telephone ownership in
the hemisphere. Only a select few Cubans, mostly those with access to U.S. dollars, can afford a computer even with the deep discounts
that come with government approval. Buying them on the black market is illegal. But, according to computer enthusiasts and dissidents,
thousands of young Cubans do so, and the practice is well known.
Internet connections are prohibited without government permission. Only about 40,000 officials,
businesses and foreigners in a country of 11 million people have been authorized to link up, the
government estimates. But thousands more have found a way to plug into the official links without permission.
The government is just beginning to test the waters of the Information Age after years of blaming
the U.S. trade embargo for depriving Cuba of the resources to prepare for it. Cuba plans to spend
$100 million annually to bring in digital phone lines, wireless technology and other advances
that could expand Internet availability.
Across the capital, signs of a "dot-com" world are sprouting. Computer courses offered at youth clubs are jammed
with students ranging in age from 4 to 40. A new breed of Internet entrepreneur has arrived, helping the government
create Web pages mostly designed to lure tourists. And streets are being torn up to install digital phone lines and
cable.
Advocates:
The USFG should enable internet freedom within repressive regimes
Fontaine 10- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as
a Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to
Senator John McCain for more than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security
Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (“America Needs an Internet Agenda”, The
Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2010, 1:59 p.m. ET,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575140513805720790.html Accessed: 7/3/13, MC)
Google's announcement that it has stopped censoring results from its Chinese search engine has captured global attention, but
developments on the Internet freedom front are coming fast and furious. In recent months, the U.S.
administration removed sanctions on Internet-related exports to Iran, Sudan, and Cuba; Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton gave an important speech on cyberfreedom; and Congress gave funding assistance to cyberdissidents in Iran and China. This
week the Senate will launch a Global Internet Freedom Caucus, and more such efforts are likely in coming months. All this is premised on the
hypothesis that more Internet freedom leads to more political freedom. Does it?
Autocracies certainly seem to think so. During last year's protests in Iran, the regime not only blocked opposition Web sites and engaged in online
China famously censors Web
sites through the so-called "Great Firewall," and other countries—including Tunisia, Burma and Cuba—have
followed Beijing's lead. Many dissidents agree that the Internet has the potential to help open
closed societies. Ahead of the 2004 Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian student group Pora used
cell phones, text messages, and Internet communications to organize tens of thousands of
efforts to track down dissidents, but also slowed down all Internet service throughout the country.
protestors. Last year, millions—including the American president—saw the YouTube video of Neda Agha-Soltan's brutal murder in the
streets of Tehran.
In supporting Internet freedom, the U.S. is placing a bet—essentially the same wager it made during the Cold War—that supporting access to
information and encouraging the free exchange of ideas is good for America. And indeed, by
making new tools available to
mass publics overseas—from offshore servers and satellite Internet service to anonymous
software and social networking sites—the U.S. can provide the platforms through which human
rights, freedom of speech and other universal values can be freely debated and discussed.
At the same time, we must understand the limitations and complications that surround these efforts. Supporting Internet freedom represents one
tool in the kit, but is no panacea, as current conditions in Iran and other Web-suppressing countries demonstrate so vividly. In addition, there is
often a tension between cybersecurity, which depends on knowing who is doing what online, and cyberfreedom, which relies on anonymous
activity. Americans both want online users to work
ensure that we are not the target of Internet-coordinated terrorist plots.
free of a repressive regimes' watchful eyes and
The U.S. could play a greater role in two areas in particular. First, the government and private
sector can expand their efforts to establish international norms governing the use of cyberspace,
attempting thereby to inculcate freedom of expression and basic human rights in online behavior.
This effort should include bringing onboard our allies and partners who at times engage in their own forms of
censorship.
Second, the U.S. can take more active steps to provide the hardware and software that would
enable such freedom to flourish. Along the lines of recent legislation, and as suggested by
Secretary of State Clinton, these efforts could include providing anonymizing and encryption
software to dissidents, expanding local language tools (such as photo and social networking
sites) that enable communications with the outside world, training social activists and diplomatic
personnel in the use of Internet technologies, and urging companies to protect dissident accounts
and identities.
All of these efforts must be coupled with old-fashioned diplomacy. When regimes crack down on online dissidents—as
they will continue to do—the U.S. should be prepared to advocate for their rights and, when necessary, their release from prison. When
regimes use the Internet to actively target protesters, organizations or other governments,
America should be ready to take a stand.
US should lift restrictions on Cuban economic development- key to ICT development
CSG et. Al.- 10- The Cuba Study Group (CSG) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders
of Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and prosperous Cuba. The CSG mission is to facilitate a peaceful
reunification of the Cuban nation that would lead to a free and open society with respect for human rights, the rule of law and a market-based
economy. Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate and dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas
(COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development,
open markets, the rule of law and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Latin America Initiative at Brookings focuses on the most
critical economic, political and social issues facing the region. Research activities center on a wide range of topics, including Cuba’s political
transition. The initiative is led by Senior Fellow Mauricio Cárdenas and is a joint effort of the Global Economy and Development and Foreign
Policy programs at Brookings. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC., “Empowering the
Cuban People through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders”, JULY 2010, http://www.ascoa.org/sites/default/files/styles/Empowering_the_Cuban_People_through_Technology.pdf, Accessed: 7/7/13, MC)
It is unreasonable to wish for the development of other forms of ICT in Cuba, such as the
Internet and social media, without economic models to make them work. Thus, the challenge
for U.S. policy-makers consists not only of effecting targeted reforms to its sanctions
for Cuba, but also of broadly lifting all restrictions that hinder the development of an
economic model capable of sustaining the requisite investments in ICT on the island and the
corresponding consumer demand for the services. A piecemeal approach will not do the job.
Current U.S. regulations restrict the very access necessary to make this happen.
Expanding the opportunity for U.S. telecom investors and companies to provide cell phone
and Internet service to the island will help ensure that Cuban citizens possess the tools
to become productive economic citizens once the shackles of political and economic state
control are removed. To say this does not deny or minimize the real controls that the Cuban
government places on its own citizens’ access to the Internet. But expanding citizens’
access to even the most rudimentary technology in Cuba would be a giant step forward
in economically empowering a new, independent generation of Cuban citizens. Laying an
effective ICT infrastructure foundation is essential for the long-term economic prospects of
the Cuban people. The following three steps would greatly facilitate getting there:
1 More explicit and flexible U.S. regulations governing the export and investments in ICT
infrastructure in Cuba.
2 More flexible and explicit U.S. regulations to allow for the development of an ICT consumer
market in Cuba.
3 Scalable donation efforts from outside of Cuba of ICT materials, equipment and software to
Cubans on the island.
An external force is necessary for broader political change
Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( “Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba”, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency
of Political Systems, January 2011
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)
However, as the preceding chapter has shown, not only has the state media monopoly become porous, but so have the state's walls of containing
web-based voice from spilling over into Cuban society. Some
15 years after Cuba joined the Internet, the webbased media not only represent a leak of voice to a globalized public, but they have led to a
limited, yet important transformation of state-society relations. They empower a new reassertion
of citi- zenship rights that challenge established rules and they foster the emergence of new
social actors and forms of action.
However, the case also shows that there is no automatism from such trends to a process of gradual reform or even regime change. The crucial
fault-line remains the physical space on the island, where the state's grip remains firm and the costs for collective action high. For
more
large-scale political transformation to occur, a wider combination of conditions must be met,
probably including the emergence of competing visions within the political elite or changes in the
external constellation of allies and foes. But the expansion of voice, the reas- sertion of citizenship
rights, and the web-based support for civic action in the physical world has already changed the
contours of state-society relations. Once conditions arise-be it for a reform movement towards a more pluralist model
of socialism or for a democratization proc- ess heading for a regime change-these transformations will
undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping any process of broader political change.
US should subsidize Cuban internet
Press 96 — Larry Press, Policy Analyst at the RAND Institute (“Cuban Telecommunications, Computer Networking, and U.S. Policy
Implications”, National Defense Institute (RAND), July 1996, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2008/DRU1330-1.pdf,
Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)
At present the Cuban connection is via dial-up phone calls to Canada or the U.K. in which data is transferred then the connection dropped until
the next call. This mode of Internet connection allows for electronic mail, but not for interactive applications like searching for and retrieving
information on the www. Furthermore,
it does not allow the Cubans to place information on servers from
which others can retrieve it. Full-time IP connectivity would allow Cubans interactive access to
outside material and vice versa.
IP connectivity requires a leased communication link, networking hardware, and competent networking centers. The capability of
providing the leased link is already in place, and Sprint has stated they will have tariffed service available soon. Other
vendors will probably follow the Sprint lead. Routers and other communication hardware and software would
also be needed. CENIAI or CIGBnet would be viable connection organizations within Cuba
today, and InfoMed plans a significant upgrade; however, CENIAI seems to be the organization designated by the
Cubans. Since Cuba has been connecting in Canada and the U.K. to date, those would be likely external connection points; however, the U.S.
National Science Foundation has a strong record of providing connection points for developing nations, and a U.S. connection should
be considered.
The U.S. should subsidize the communication link, international connectivity through NSF, and
Cuban networking hardware. The cost of doing so would be very small compared to Radio or TV
Marti, and would surely have a greater impact than the latter.
Internet AT: Squo Solves -general
Challenges for societal autonomy within state control are co-opted
Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( “Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba”, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency
of Political Systems, January 2011
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)
The Cuban Revolution of 1959 redefined state-societyrelations. Most existing civil society
organizations were either disbanded or transformed (and new ones created) according to a mold in which loyalty and
subordination to the revolutionary leadership were a conditio sine qua non.1 With the so-called "process of
institutionalization" in the 1970s, state-society rela- tions were formally modeled in MarxistLeninist fashion: the Constitution of 1976 defined the Communist Party as the "highest leading
force of society and of the state, which organ- izes and guides the common effort" (Republica de
Cuba 1992 §5) and declared as mission of "the social and mass organizations [.] the edification,
consolidation and defense of the so- cialist society" (ibid. 7). Freedom of speech and of press were limited, by
constitutional pre- scription, "in keeping with the objectives of socialist society" (Republica de
Cuba 1992). To this end, Article 52 of the Cuban Constitution effectively establishes a monopoly
on mass media: "Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the
press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private
property" (ibid. § 52,1).1 For Cuban civil society prior to 1959 see Armony/Crahan 2007; on trade unions and the
women's federation see Marifeli Perez-Stable 1994. Organizational activities that remained (at least
partially) outside of these parameters
were few and narrowly restricted; arguably, the most important one being the Catholic church, which maintained a nationwide
and legally recognized institutional infrastructure that included media for internal circulation (Armony/Crahan 2007).2
In the charismatic brand of socialism that characterized post-1959 Cuba and which set it
apart from the standard Eastern European model (Hoffmann 2008), formal prescriptions like the constitutional provisions on the media were
The key statement on
the margins for voice were his so-called "words to the intellectuals" from 1961, which pro- vided
the following maxim: "Within the Revolution, everything. Against the Revolution, nothing."3 This
sentence, repeated ad infinitum ever since, acquired law-like status and left ample discretion for the power-holders to
define at every instance what was "within" and what was "against" the revolution. Aside from
media, a central and related concern was on public space. In the dualism of Cuba's charismatic brand of
socialism, formal restrictions on the freedom of assembly also found their informal equivalent in
the slogan "The street is Fidel's!",4 a code the state invoked to justify the prohibition or
repression of protesting voices in public. The severe limits imposed on public voices contrasted with an
complemented with declarations by the charismatic leader, Fidel Castro, which carried no less practical weight.
often surprising level of tolerance towards criticism voiced in private-an ambivalence which led Cubans to paraphrase Fidel's 1961 words as
"Under the roof, everything. In the street, nothing.
After the regime collapses in Eastern Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991,
a profound economic, social and ideological crisis in Cuba ensued, one that called into ques- tion
the viability of state-society relations as they had developed in the three decades since
1959. Internationally, civil society had gone from a buzzword in academia to a resounding career path in international and development
politics. Particularly the role ascribed to civil society in bringing down state-socialism in Eastern Europe (Arato/Cohen 1992, Havel 1978)
provided the background for the concept being taken up by U.S. policy towards Cuba, which in the early 1990s, publicly adopted "the fostering of
Cuba's civil society" as a "second track" next to economic sanctions to bring about regime change in Havana.
These political overtones notwithstanding, it was within the official intellectual institu-
tions on the island that in the mid-1990s, the term "civil society" became the focus of a key
debate about the country's course (Gray/Kapcia 2008). As the concept of civil society stresses
some degree of autonomy from the "political society" (state, parties, parliaments, etc.) (e.g. Fernandez 1993: 99), in a state-socialist country this conception invariably raises the question
about the role of state and party and the margins of associational autonomy within such a
framework. This debate about civil society within state-socialism marked a new discussion not only for Cuba, but also internationally.
An article by Rafael Hernandez from Havana's Center for American Studies (CEA) initi-ated the Cuban civil society debate in 1994. In it, he
underscored the Marxist ideological cre- dentials of the term claiming its tradition in the writings of Hegel, Marx and Gramsci and argued for
Hernandez
argued that both civil society and the socialist state are "organic segments of the socialist
system," which are interconnected and mutually reinforcing (Hernandez 1994: 31). Moreover, the distinction
"the necessity and usefulness [of applying] the concept to the analysis of current problems in Cuba" (Hernandez 1994: 30).6
between civil society and the state should be of great practical importance for Cuba because "the dynamics of civil society have been
overshadowed by a strong politicization of social relations and institutions in Cuba" (ibid.: 30). This
indirect call for a depoliticization of social relations provides the signpost for the ensuing debate: reclaiming greater
autonomy of the social sphere and its organizations and institutions from the state.
The background of this argument is the deep economic crisis that has plagued Cuba since the demise of its socialist
allies overseas in 1989/90 and the consequences of that crisis for Cuban society-above all, the bitter divide between
the depressed peso economy and the emergent enclaves of "dollarized" sectors in tourism and joint ventures, and the
rapidly growing role of illegal and legal market mechanisms.7 On this, Hernandez (ibid.: 30) writes:
The problems the Cuban society is facing cannot be contained within the limits of an economic
analysis. Both the causes and the consequences of the crisis transcend this dimension. However, even
within this narrow framework it is obvious that 'the realm of economic relations' in Cuba has changed [.]. It now comprises phenomena such as
the informal economy, which is characterized by the growth of independent work and the black market, as well as the rise of new forms of labor
in the mixed sector of the new, markedly differentiated, economy.
The concept of civil society suggested by Hernandez is thus framed as primarily a response to
the increasing differentiation of Cuban society, resulting from the economic crisis. Other con- tributions pushed the Cuban
civil society debate further. Most importantly, Hugo Azcuy, one of Hernandez's colleagues at the CEA, wrote of the "necessity for
more plural expressions in Cuban society," (Azcuy 1995: 105, emphasis in original) for which the concept of civil
society
"should not only be used as an instrument of analysis, but also as a project" (ibid., emphasis in
6 Even at this early point, political resistance against the use of the term became evident. When
published in the journal of the official Cuban writers' association, UNEAC, it was prefaced by a "Letter to the
Editor " in which a member of the association reprimands Hernandez for his "imprecise" use of
the term which he identified with the counter-revolutionary strategy of the U.S. government.
7 Parallel to the debate on civil society, a similar debate evolved about increased autonomy for economic actors and
resulting reform steps (see Carranza/Gutierrez/Monreal 1995; for an overview see Hoffmann 1995; 1997).
original). This idea of civil society as a project of socialist renewal hence became a leitmotif of
Cuba's intellectual reform discourse in the mid-1990s. Azcuy (1995: 108) posits "the strength- ening of Cuban
civil society and its necessary autonomy within the framework of the revolu- tionary project of
which it understands itself to be a part" as its frame of reference.8
If state authorities feared civil society as a potential loss of power, in the following text
contribution Hernandez is explicit in reverting this logic. The activation of civil society is meant
precisely to come to the rescue of a socialist state whose needs for "new forms of le- gitimacy" in
order to secure regime stability are acknowledged:
As the sphere in which the tensions and conflicts facing the state are enacted, it is in the interest of and the
responsibility of the state to search within civil society for new forms of legitimacy and arenas of consensus. [.]
Without the consensus of civil soci- ety, not only will the legitimacy of the government suffer damage, but also the
stability
of the system itself.
(Hernandez 1996: 88)
In terms of audience, the reach of this debate was limited. It mostly moved within academic or intellectual
institutions, with the Center for American Studies (CEA) as the epicenter,9 and journals, including Temas magazine, directed by Hernandez,
became the key forums of the debate. The
civil society discourse hardly ever found reflections in the statecontrolled mass media. However, there was an empirical side to this debate which was played out in the tug- of-war about the
redefinition of the nature of societal associations and their relation to the state. The economic crisis had not only led to a
heterogenization of society, but had also left established institutions in cultural, social or
academic fields cash-strapped, as the money from the state coffers dried up. As a consequence, a search for new funding
possibilities be- gan. While also playing well to members' aspirations of more autonomy from the state,
the label "non-governmental organization" (NGO) promised to be the key for access to donor
money from international development actors, both private and public.
Cuba becoming more repressive in the squo
Daremblum 13- Jaime Daremblum, Ambassador Jaime Daremblum, a scholar of Latin America, international politics, and international
economics, joined Hudson Institute as a Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson's Center for Latin American Studies in 2005. He served as
Ambassador of Costa Rica to the United States from 1998 to 2004. Prior to assuming his post as Ambassador, he was a professor at the
University of Costa Rica, the Autonomous University, and the Center of Administrative and Political Research, affiliated with Tulane University.
He has also practiced law in Costa Rica. Ambassador Daremblum also served, from 1985 to 1998, as a foreign policy advisor to the Presidential
campaigns from the Social Christian Unity Party of Costa Rica. (“Why Cuba Is Getting More Repressive”, The Hudson Institute, April 4, 2013,
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=9566&pubType=LatinAmerica, MC)
Americans are always on the lookout for signs that Cuba is finally changing, and the changes listed above have
prompted many journalists, analysts, and political figures to renew their calls for lifting or at least softening the U.S.
embargo. After traveling to the island in mid-February as part of an official delegation of federal lawmakers,
Democratic senator Pat Leahy of Vermont expressed his hope for a shift in U.S. policy: "There is a growing sense
by many in the U.S. who do not have a Cold War attitude that they would like to see a change."
But the
biggest impediment to closer bilateral relations is not "a Cold War attitude" on Capitol
Hill, nor is it the American embargo. It is the behavior of the Castro regime. Indeed, we should not
let Havana's timid economic reforms or its new travel policy distract us from the more important
story: In its treatment of human-rights activists, pro-democracy dissidents, and pretty much anyone it
considers a threat to Communist rule, the Cuban government is becoming more repressive, not
less.
For example:
* During the first nine months of 2011, the independent Cuban
Commission for Human Rights and National
Reconciliation (CCHRNR) documented some 2,784 "incidents of human-rights abuses,"
compared with 2,074 in all of 2010.
* In March 2012, Amnesty International reported that, since 2010, there had been "a steady increase in
the number of arbitrary detentions," with the Castro regime waging "a permanent campaign of harassment and short-term
detentions of political opponents." One of Amnesty's Cuba researchers affirmed that "Cuba has seen
worsening repression when it comes to human rights."
* Over the next ten months, between March 2012 and January 2013, the number of political prisoners on the island
doubled (from 45 to 90), according to the CCHRNR.Those figures only include prisoners jailed on explicitly
political charges; the total number of Cuban political prisoners is much larger, since the regime is holding many
dissidents on bogus criminal charges.
* In its latest Freedom in the World report, Freedom House says: "The
Cuban government oversaw a systematic
increase in short-term 'preventative' detentions of dissidents in 2012, in addition to harassment,
beatings, acts of repudiation, and restrictions on foreign and domestic travel."
* Overall, notes Miami Herald correspondent Juan Tamayo, Cuba witnessed "a record 6,200 short-term detentions
for political motives" last year.
Then there is the story of Oswaldo Payá, a world-famous Cuban dissident and founder of the Varela Project who
(along with fellow dissident Harold Cepero) died last July after a highly suspicious car accident. As Wall Street
Journal columnist Mary O'Grady has written, Payá's daughter, Rosa María Payá, believes that his car "was
intentionally rammed from behind by another car," and that her father's death was "a probable murder." In a recent
interview with the Washington Post, Spanish politician Ángel Carromero, who was driving the car carrying Oswaldo
Payá, said that they were rammed by a government vehicle whose occupants were "staring at [them] aggressively"
before the collision. Carromero also said that, after the crash, he was drugged and threatened by Cuban authorities,
who subsequently convicted him of manslaughter. (In December, Carromero was repatriated to Spain, and he has
since been paroled.) Florida senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, has urged the United Nations to launch "a thorough
independent investigation of the events leading up to Payá's death."
The death of Payá and the broader campaign of repression against Cuban activists are troubling enough. But for U.S.
officials hoping to abolish or ease sanctions, the elephant in the room is the ongoing detention of USAID contractor
Alan Gross, a Maryland resident who has been held in a Cuban prison for more than three years on ridiculous
espionage charges. It is hard to argue that Havana either deserves or desires warmer relations with Washington when
it continues to hold an American hostage. Gross, who turns 64 in May, has seen his health deteriorate, and has
reportedly lost more than 100 pounds since his incarceration.
His only "crime" was to help boost Internet access for Cuba's tiny Jewish community. But the Castro regime fears greater Internet access because
it fears losing its monopoly on information. It fears that Cubans will become more willing to challenge the status quo and demand real reforms.
And, indeed, that is exactly what's been happening. As
dissident-blogger Yoani Sánchez told the Post last month,
"People are losing their fear, moving from silent to open, from wearing a mask to showing their
real face in public." Havana's growing concern over political unrest explains the imprisonment of
Gross, and the crackdown on the Ladies in White, and the harassment of activists across the
island.
Simply put: Cuba is becoming more repressive because the dictatorship is increasingly afraid of a
homegrown democracy movement. That would seem to be a much bigger story than a few cosmetic economic reforms designed
to keep the regime in power.
Appearing last month on Spanish television, Rosa María Payá said that Raúl's reforms are mainly a PR stunt, and not a serious attempt to improve
human rights. They "are designed to win over international public opinion," she said. "The conditions Cubans live in has not changed." If
the
Castro regime is truly serious about reform and liberalization, Payá added, it will allow a
nationwide referendum on democracy — the type of referendum called for by her father's Varela Project. The government's
refusal to hold such a referendum shows just how little Cuba has actually changed.
Internet AT: The Black Market
Current underground internet access fails – not widespread
Kalathil & Boas 01- Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil
society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S.
Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washingtonbased programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley
and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of
voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas, The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes:
China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution, http://carnegieendowment.org/2001/07/16/internet-and-state-control-in-authoritarian-regimes-chinacuba-and-counterrevolution/1ic4, Accessed: 6/28/13, MC)
The Cuban government’s access controls are not perfect, and a growing number of users manage to
connect to the Internet illegally from home, using passwords from their workplace or accounts acquired through the black market
or personal connections. It is impossible to estimate precisely the extent of such underground
Internet use, although it is undoubtedly limited by the considerable expense and difficulty of obtaining
an Internet-capable computer. While comparatively well-off Cubans may be able to gain Internet access
in this manner, known dissidents and members of the political opposition are watched closely and have virtually no hope of
acquiring even underground Internet access. Still, there is the potential for underground Internet
access to grow and become more of a challenge to state control. In particular, Cuba may eventually relax the restrictions on
individual Internet access to capture some of this blackmarket revenue, just as it legalized the use and possession of dollars in 1993 to capitalize on the already widespread trade in the currency.
The Internet poses several potential challenges to the regime that
provoke a reactive state
response. The first of these involves Internet use by the mass public. Like China, Cuba is
undoubtedly concerned about “ideational pluralism” and the potential for its citizens to access a
wide range of information on the Internet.69 This concern extends to other forms of media: Cuba pours enormous resources
Potential Challenges and Reactive State Response
into blocking U.S. radio and television broadcasts, and it quickly banned the homemade satellite dishes that began to proliferate in the early
1990s. In the case of the Internet, therefore, Cuba’s
strategy of access restriction seeks in part to minimize the
potential threat of widespread use among the mass public. While other authoritarian regimes
have allowed broader access and relied on censorship to maintain control of the Internet, Cuba’s
strategy of access restriction obviates the need to maintain an elaborate, centralized system of blocking
web sites and tracking e-mails. Those granted access to the Internet are generally sympathetic to the
regime’s point of view, and their use of the medium poses little threat to state security. Internet use by CSOs in
Cuba is another factor that may challenge state sociopolitical control. During the 1990s, the Cuban government has somewhat reluctantly allowed
the sprouting of grassroots CSOs involved with religion, conservation, and sustainable development. In addition, a handful of human rights
organizations and dissident groups have long existed (albeit illegally) as bottom-up organizations in Cuban society. During
recent
years, U.S. policy toward Cuba has increasingly sought to engage the Cuban people while
opposing the regime,
and a major component of this strategy has involved reaching out to Cuban CSOs.70 In this
environment, the Cuban government has kept a watchful eye on organizations with extensive international contacts, and it is undoubtedly
concerned about the potential use of e-mail for logistical organization among politically threatening CSOs. As
a result, it has
carefully meted out access among CSOs according to their political orientation. Dissident and
human rights organizations openly opposed to the regime have little hope of gaining Internet
access: most have their telephone calls regularly monitored, and several have had computers
confiscated by authorities. CSOs that have positive relationships with the regime have faced few obstacles to access, while those
with a neutral political outlook generally have had more difficulty in obtaining an Internet
connection.
Internet AT: Venezuela Cable
Venezuelan cable doesn’t solve- government control stays
Reporters Without Borders 12- Reporters Without Borders, registered in France as a non-profit
organization and has consultant status at the United Nations and UNESCO. In 2013, Reporters Without Borders
wins the Freedom of Speech Award from the International Association od Press Clubs (IAPC),
(“INTERNET ENEMIES REPORT 2012”, Reporters Without Borders, 12 MARCH 2012,
http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-internet2012_ang.pdf, Accessed: 6/28/13, MC)
THE UNDERSEA CABLE FROM VENEZUELA, A NEW HOPE? Much
more is at stake now with the arrival of the
undersea Alba fiber-optic cable which will link Cuba and Venezuela, multiplying by 3,000 the
island’s capacity to connect to the rest of the world. Initially scheduled for the summer of 2011, its implementation was
postponed without further explanation. In early 2011, the regime announced that this Web access would be
reserved for “social use” by institutions, universities and certain professions such as doctors and
journalists. It would also make it possible to continue setting up collective access centres. Contrary to expectations, in late January 2012, the
Cuban Communist Party Congress carefully set aside the issue of Internet development. Although no one is banking on the
fact that certain cable fibres will be diverted towards the Internet access black market, others
believe that the cable will not create new opportunities for Cubans who wish to connect to the
World Wide Web. Since the latter is rationed, as is the rest of Cuba, the cable could only enhance connection
quality and bandwidth speed for those who already have access. The regime remains ready to
crush any attempt to bypass censorship. In November 2011, Cuba accused the United States of bolstering parallel Internet
connections on the island by unlawfully importing equipment and making satellite connections available. An American citizen accused of
involvement in these clandestine activities was arrested in December 2009.
Venezuelan internet cable is functionally useless- obsolete hardware
Mirof 10— Nick Miroff, Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost., Miroff was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a
Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech. His story in the Washington Post on coal miners and painkiller
addiction in Appalachian southwest Virginia was the recipient of a 2008 Nancy Dickerson Award for Excellent in Reporting on Drug and
Alcohol Problems. In 2006, he traveled to Northern Manitoba as part of a radio series on climate change, “Early Signs: Reports from a Warming
Planet” that won a 2006 George Polk Award. Miroff grew up in Albany, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American
literature at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. (“Cuba internet:
Wired, but not connected”,globalpost.com, January 25, 2013, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/130124/cubanundersea-internet-cable-web-connection, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
HAVANA, Cuba — With
the long-anticipated activation of their ALBA-1 undersea internet cable
this month, Cuban web users now have the technological equivalent of a horse-drawn Toyota
Prius.
Completed in 2011 and spanning the Caribbean from eastern Cuba to Venezuela — roughly the distance from Miami to Washington, DC — the
cable finally gives the island a modern data transmission link. It has the capacity to vastly
improve internet access in a country that consistently ranks as the least-connected in the Western
Hemisphere.
But the small minority of Cubans who currently enjoy internet access must go online via dial-up
networks on their phone lines, relying on a technology that has been obsolete for more than a
decade. Tourist hotels and a few government workplaces have Wi-Fi or DSL hookups, but everyone else is stuck with transmission
rates that hover around 5 kilobytes per second.
Surfing the web in Cuba requires stoic reserves of patience. Online photos often don’t open. Streaming web video is
completely out of the question.
Firing up the undersea cable won’t change that anytime soon.
ETECSA, the Castro government’s state telecom monopoly, confirmed this week that it had
finally flipped on the $70 million Venezuela-financed cable, rerouting data traffic away from the
slow satellite systems it has relied upon until now.
That should translate to faster Facebook access at the beach resorts of Varadero and in the lobbies of Havana’s
priciest hotels. But analysts say without massive investments in the rest of the island’s
communication infrastructure, Cuba will have little more than a strong link in a weak chain.
Dial-up technology, they say, is simply not compatible with the modern internet.
The question now is whether Cuba will make good on its pledge to broaden web access — prioritizing “social” uses,
the government insists — or keep the island’s population in the pre-internet Dark Ages.
Fewer than 10 percent of Cubans currently have access to the world wide web, according to most
estimates, a rate lower than Haiti’s. Young Cubans often cite their inability to get online and communicate with friends abroad as a deep
frustration, and an added incentive to emigrate.
Cuban authorities say their priority will be to boost internet availability at schools, hospitals and other
government institutions, in contrast to the at-home on-demand individual web access available in the capitalist world. As Castro
critics point out, such “social” access can also conveniently facilitate censorship and web monitoring by the
state.
Internet AT: Actor CP
US leadership is key to resolve international internet norms
Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more
than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers’ research focus is on
science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change,
environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. (“ Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age”, CNAS, JUNE 2011,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
At the same time, the U.S. government has tried to codify norms that would reinforce free
expression and block efforts to restrict it. The 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a U.N.-sponsored gathering of
174 countries, produced a consensus statement recognizing that “freedom of expression and the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge, are essential for the
the member states of the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) adopted a resolution pledging to “refrain from taking any unilateral and/or
discriminatory actions that could impede another Member State to access public Internet sites.”
Information Society and beneficial to development.”103 In 2008,
According to Ambassador David Gross, then the top State Department official managing communications and information policy, the deliberations made clear that
Continued U.S. leadership is critical to fill
what remains a normative vacuum. Part of the difficulty, however, lies not only with authoritarian regimes, but also with some of America’s
closest democratic partners. While the U.S. government recognizes some limits on free expression – child
pornography, slander, perjury, “fighting words” and certain other forms of expression are illegal, online or off – its commitment to free speech
is nevertheless the strongest of any major country. Germany, for instance, prohibits Holocaust denial online; France does not allow
“member states” meant not only governments, but also the civilians of those countries.104
the sale of Nazi paraphernalia over the Internet; and Turkey banned YouTube for two years because it refused to remove videos the courts deemed insulting to
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Governments in Britain, Italy and Germany have also established lists of blocked websites – particularly those containing child pornography,
online gambling or hate speech – but these lists are often neither transparent nor accountable to the public.
Internet Public Sphere Ext.
Embargo blocks technology- State cuts the free-flow of information
Dodge No Date – Writing from University of Michigan (“The United States Embargo on Cuba”, University of Michigan InfoSurgents,
no date specified but last referred to 2010, http://sitemaker.umich.edu/infosurgentscuba/u.s._embargo_, accessed: 7/4/13, ckr)
The embargo is highly criticized by Cuban citizens for the negative impact it has on Cuban life.
Because of the embargo and the additional restrictions imposed on Cuban citizens by Fidel Castro, Cuban
citizens often do not have access to medical supplies that they need,[5]as well as access to the
technologies that keep them connected to the rest of the world. While the United Nations votes every
year in favor of lifting the heavily criticized blockade, and the fact that travel restrictions to Cuba have be
decreasing,[7] the United States continues to keep it in place, most recently evidenced by Barack Obama, who on
September 2, 2010 renewed the embargo for another year, claiming that it was in the best interest of the United
States.
The embargo completely hinders Cubans from accessing the technology that would allow a freeflow of information with the rest of the world. Citizens are cut off from the world around them,
and even when they are able to access Internet cafés, the Internet is so slow and heavily
monitored that it is virtually impossible to do more that send an email or two. Dissidents are heavily
persecuted, and it is common for journalists to be imprisoned for subverting the Cuban law. Because of the embargo
imposed by the United States, the Cuban government is given more power over its citizens and their
abilities to communicate with the rest of the world. In addition, the restrictions on traveling into and out of
the country make it difficult for information to spread in the absence of Internet access.
Freedom in the public sphere is necessary for transformations of the state-society
relationship
Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( “Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba”, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency
of Political Systems, January 2011
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)
A precondition for civil society activism to evolve is some degree of public sphere in which it
can "breathe." The state monopoly on mass media, as exercised by the Cuban state, has been a
particularly thorough form of authoritarian control over the national public sphere. The comparative
empirical analysis of civil society dynamics in the 1990s and in the 2000s has shown the notable
impact of the digital, web-based media on the contours of the public sphere and has also
demonstrated that this, in turn, impacts the activities, conception and organizational forms of
societal actors. In the pre-Internet period, within a very much restricted public sphere, the civil
society debate largely focused on behind-the-scenes struggles for increased autonomy of associational life within the state-socialist framework (e.g. Azcuy 1995). In contrast, a decade later we
witness the emergence of a self-assertive "citizenship from below," which demands, and to some
degree enacts (empowered by digital and web-based technologies), a widening of the public
sphere and a greater degree of citizen autonomy from the state, leading to a different type of civil
society activity. While this "insurgent citizenship"-to borrow Holston's (2008) expression-defies the
socialist regime's traditional design of state-society relations, its effect on democratization
depends on the extent to which web-based voice is able to connect with off-line public debate
and social action.
However, the initial question-that of whether civil society activism fosters processes of regime change-does not have
a clear-cut answer. While regime opponents see the struggles over Internet access, blogs and e-mails
as a pars pro toto for the civic liberties of liberal democ- racy, reformists from within the system
argue the need for more participation and wider margins of debate, precisely because they are
indispensable to regain legitimacy for the so- cialist project.
As of this writing, the government, it seems, has come to accept the fact that its media
monopoly has become porous. The government's crucial concern is containment:
to minimize the
domestic impact, to put brakes on the contagion effect, and, most importantly, to keep the
pluralism of the web-based voice from spilling over into Cuba's non-virtual public sphere. This
echoes the state's traditional "under the roof, everything-in the street, nothing" ap- proach towards dissenting voices;
on the web, as "under the roof," much may be tolerated, aslong as it doesn't take to "the street," that is, combine with
social action in the physical world.
The state's attitude towards leading blogger Yoani Sanchez exemplifies this policy. While
her blog is de facto tolerated by the outside world, domestic access to it is blocked. And when the blogger moved to
social activism in the physical world in 2009, the regime reacted heavy-handedly, including using physical
intimidation and orchestrated mobilizations of "enraged revolutionaries" against her and fellow bloggers. Similarly,
those still working within and those dependent on official structures are admonished and told to
keep their dis- tance from those branded as "counter-revolutionaries."
However, as the preceding chapter has shown, not only has the state media monopoly become porous, but so have
the state's walls of containing web-based voice from spilling over into Cuban society. Some 15 years after
Cuba joined the Internet, the web-based media not only represent a leak of voice to a globalized
public, but they have led to a limited, yet important transformation of state-society relations.
They empower a new reassertion of citi- zenship rights that challenge established rules and they
foster the emergence of new social actors and forms of action.
Internet can create free spaces outside state control
Sánchez 10 - Yoani Sánchez, In 2008, Sánchez was honored with awards that included Time magazine’s "One of the 100 Most Influential
People in the World”, one of Foreign Policy magazine’s “10 Most Influential Latin American Intellectuals” of the year, and the El País 2008
“Ortega y Gasset Prize for Digital Journalism”. She was, as well, one of El País’ 2008 100 most notable Hispanoamericans, and one of
Gatopardo’s 10 most influential people of 2008. (“Freedom and Exchange in Communist Cuba“, Cato Institute Development Policy Briefing
Paper No. 5, June 16, 2010 http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/dbp5.pdf, Accessed: 7/3/13 MC)
The only threat that can be made against a sheep who wants to escape is that it will be returned to the pen. But it will
no longer be part of the herd because, while the pen has fences, bolts, and physical boundaries, the herd is a
mathematical abstraction, a number that falls apart once the participants who make up the sum decide to exercise
their free will. As soon as a citizen stops paying with his
freedom for other rights that ought to be respected, the confiscator of his sovereignty must
change his tactics; now, instead of stealing his freedom from him, he must buy it. He must promise
him better food, a roof that won’t go flying off in a hurricane, or more lucrative subsidies. But little can be done
if your coffers are empty and you have not learned how to create the wealth you must offer in exchange for
freedom. Every day there are more people in Cuba who are disenchanted with the socialist system,
or the scam that goes by that name. Conversely, no conversions occur in the other
direction and, now, to wear that mask is becoming a bad choice. Even the opportunists, with their
sensitive noses, begin to flirt with real criticism and sing in the chorus of those demanding change. People are
beginning to be conscious of having been cheated; this leads to signs of discontent and,
lamentably, the country bleeds through growing migration. Just by boarding an airplane, many
believe they can begin to recover all the freedoms ceded and stolen, while few dare—from inside
our country—to push the limits of what is permitted. One of the tools that has helped people
recover the opportunity to air their opinions is the Internet. Although a common citizen cannot
contract for Internet at home, and the price of an hour’s connection in a public place exceeds two
weeks’ wages, a web of networks has emerged as the only means by which a person on the
island can make his opinions known to the rest of the world. Today, this virtual space is like a
training camp where Cubans go to relearn forgotten freedoms. The right of association can be found on
Facebook, Twitter, and the other social networks, in a sort of compensation for the crime of “unlawful assembly”
established by the Cuban penal code. In a printed newspaper or magazine, on the radio or television, it is still
impossible to publicize opinions that stray from the trite official script, but once connected to the Internet, many
possibilities open up. Up until now, the most used are the independent blogs that
have begun to appear. Most of the “direct readers” are abroad, and from there they email the articles and posts they
like to their friends and family in Cuba, who copy and multiply them. The bloggers, for their part, put copies of their
work on CDs and even distribute them on flash drives. Television stations received by illegal satellite report on the
contents of the blogs and conduct interviews, showing the faces of the bloggers. In this way, in less than a year, a
community of cyber-dissidents was created—a blogostroika, as it is also called. Spaces such as Voces
Cubanas or Desde Cuba, and the digital magazine Convivencia, are vivid examples of this. They don’t need
authorized spaces to exist; rather, in lieu of
recovering these parcels of freedom, they have created them.
Internet – Impact Scenarios
Democracy:
Civil Society is upholds democracy - internet awareness key
Drake, Kalathil, & Boas 00- William J. Drake, University of Zurich, Switzerland, Media Change & Innovation Division,
IPMZ, International Fellow, Lecturer Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media,
civil society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the
U.S. Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for
Washington-based programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from
U.C. Berkeley and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested
in issues of voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston
University, received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 2009 (“ Dictatorships in the Digital Age: Some
Considerations on the Internet in China and Cuba”, http://carnegieendowment.org/, OCTOBER 23, 2000,
http://carnegieendowment.org/2000/10/23/dictatorships-in-digital-age-some-considerations-on-internet-in-china-and-cuba/4e9e
Civil Society. As there is growing consensus among practitioners and scholars that a vibrant civil
society is a key contributor to democracy, the use of the Internet by both civil societal
organizations (CSOs) and the mass public merits significant attention. Especially important in the former
category are human rights and other advocacy groups that actively work to promote social change. In
addition, community, charitable, educational and other groups with less directly political agendas can also enhance a nation's social
capital and the formation and spread of democratic impulses. Hence, one could examine CSOs' use of the Internet
to produce and distribute pro-democracy information, coordinate actions and form alliances with domestic and international counterparts and
other organizations, contribute to democracy-building and civic education, etc. With
regard to the latter category, one could
consider the implications of the mass public's Internet usage, e.g., the demonstration effects of
increasing awareness of the outside world and exposure to democratic ideas and practices;
greater access to information about domestic events such as government abuses of power; and
the building of social capital and liberal values through virtual communities on the Internet. In
parallel, one should also assess the "dark side" of civil societal Internet usage by groups promoting ethnic hatreds or other causes that may work
against democratization.
Human Rights:
Internet freedom is key to intrinsic human rights
Fontaine and Rogers 11- Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He served as a
Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at CNAS from 2009-2012. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more
than five years. He has also worked at the State Department, the National Security Council and on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Will Rogers, is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). At CNAS, Mr. Rogers’ research focus is on
science, technology and national security policy. He has authored or co-authored a range of publications on energy, climate change,
environmental cooperation in Asia and cybersecurity. (“ Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age”, CNAS, JUNE 2011,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
The United States has a long history of providing diplomatic and financial support for the
promotion of human rights abroad, including the right to free expression. While each presidential
administration emphasizes human rights to differing degrees, during recent decades they have all consistently
held that human rights are a key U.S. interest. Promoting freedom of the Internet expands human
rights support into cyberspace, an environment in which an ever-greater proportion of human
activity takes place. The United States advocates for freedom of the Internet because it accords not
only with American values, but also with rights America believes are intrinsic to all humanity. For
years, the U.S. government has programmatically and rhetorically supported democracy promotion abroad. The State Department routinely
disburses millions of dollars in funding for democracy-building programs around the world, many of which are aimed explicitly at expanding free
expression. Presidential and other speeches regularly refer to the American belief in the universality of this right; to cite but one example, a
March 2011 White House statement on Syria noted that, “The United States stands for a set of universal rights, including the freedom of
expression and peaceful assembly.”8 The
Obama administration’s 2010 National Security Strategy
specifically called for marshaling the Internet and other information technologies to support
freedom of expression abroad,9 and the Bush administration adopted a policy of maximizing access to information and ideas over
the Internet.10America’s interest in promoting freedom via the Internet comes from the same fundamental belief in democratic values and human
rights. Despite inevitable inconsistencies and difficult tradeoffs, the United States continues to support democracy. The Bush administration’s
2006 National Security Strategy committed to support democratic institutions abroad through transformational diplomacy.11 President Obama,
after entering office with an evident desire to move away from the sweeping tone of his predecessor’s “freedom agenda,” nevertheless told the
U.N. General Assembly in 2009 that “there
are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths
which are self-evident – and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for
the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.
Cuban Economy:
Information and Communication Technology key to Cuban economic progress
CSG et. Al.- 10- The Cuba Study Group (CSG) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders
of Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and prosperous Cuba. The CSG mission is to facilitate a peaceful
reunification of the Cuban nation that would lead to a free and open society with respect for human rights, the rule of law and a market-based
economy. Americas Society (AS) is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate and dialogue in the Americas. Council of the Americas
(COA) is the premier international business organization whose members share a common commitment to economic and social development,
open markets, the rule of law and democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Latin America Initiative at Brookings focuses on the most
critical economic, political and social issues facing the region. Research activities center on a wide range of topics, including Cuba’s political
transition. The initiative is led by Senior Fellow Mauricio Cárdenas and is a joint effort of the Global Economy and Development and Foreign
Policy programs at Brookings. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC., “Empowering the
Cuban People through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders”, JULY 2010, http://www.ascoa.org/sites/default/files/styles/Empowering_the_Cuban_People_through_Technology.pdf, Accessed: 7/7/13, MC)
ICT is inherently politically neutral in that it has the potential to repress, propagandize and
liberate. Yet the force of ICT is powerful and indisputable. ICT has become a requirement, not a byproduct, for economic development. Several modern-day dictatorships that value economic
development have allowed for the growth and development of the technologies but have made
major investments in control tools. Examples include China, Iran, Syria and Burma. Other dictatorships
that do not value economic growth simply hinder or block the technologies’ development. A
perfect example is North Korea, while Cuba probably represents a dictatorship transitioning from one
modality to the other.
Nonetheless, as we saw in Iran in the aftermath of its rigged electoral process in 2009, once the technology is
widespread it tends to favor the people, not the regime. Thus, for those who advocate for the growth of
democracy and freedom, promoting widespread access to ICT is an important liberating tool. For
democracy advocates, exploiting the aforementioned challenges that ICT presents to dictatorial regimes acquires
paramount importance.
Cuba is not exempt from these challenges; rather, it is attempting to balance these key challenges. Cuba
needs to fundamentally reform its economy but deeply fears the political impact of widespread
access to ICT. How it pursues that balance can be greatly facilitated, or made difficult, by U.S.
policy toward Cuba.
We know that there is a strong correlation between access to ICT and economic growth and
development. Conversely, the large investments required for ICT infrastructure will only take
place when there is a revenue model to support the investment and provide investors with
market-based return rates. This became exceedingly clear with cellular phones. As little as five years ago, there
were just a few thousand mobile phones in Cuba, almost all of them in the hands of government officials, foreigners
and members of the elites. Since President Raúl Castro’s 2008 announcement lifting the ban on cell phones, the
number of cell phones will rapidly approach one million by the end of 2010. The reason is simple: Cell phone
revenues have become an important source of hard currency. The economic benefits outweigh political concerns.
Internet Human Rights Ext. (moar cards)
UN ruled internet is a human right
Ralph 12- Talia Ralph, She earned an honors degree in multimedia journalism from Emerson College, and has
written for Metro, Boston Magazine, WBUR.org, Flaunt Magazine, Roads and Kingdoms, and the Boston Globe,(UN
deems Internet access a basic human right, Global Post, July 6, 2012,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/diplomacy/120706/un-deems-internet-access-basic-humanright-0, Accessed: June 28, 2013, KH)
The United Nations has ruled that Internet access is a basic human right that should be guaranteed and protected
by states. The motion, which was passed on Thursday in Geneva, "affirms that the same rights that people have
offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of
frontiers and through any media of one’s choice." The action was led by Sweden and supported by the General
Assembly's 47 member countries, including America, Brazil and Tunisia, Digital Spy reported. The ruling comes in
the wake of the Arab Spring, during which social media played a crucial role in organizing protesters and spreading
the word. "This outcome is momentous for the Human Rights Council," said US ambassador Eileen Donahoe,
Reuters reported. "It's the first ever UN resolution affirming that human rights in the digital realm must be
protected and promoted to the same extent and with the same commitment as human rights in the physical
world." The Internet's role has grown exponentially in recent years and will continue to grow: mobile data traffic
alone is set to increase 15-fold in the next five years, according to the New York Times. With it's increased use,
there is a greater focus on ensuring access to the world-wide web for everyone. "Beyond affirming that freedom of
expression applies also to the Internet, the resolution also recognized the immense value the Internet has for
global development and called on all states to facilitate and improve global access to it," wrote Carl Bildt, Sweden's
foreign minister, in a New York Times opinion piece. UN member states China and Cuba have both been criticized
for their censorship of the Internet — in fact, China's selective blocking of webpages is no notorious it has come to
be referred to as the Great Firewall of China, according to Reuters. In response to the resolution, Cuban diplomat
Juan Antonio Quintanilla hinted that the US dominates control of the web, Reuters reported. "Only 30 percent of
the world population currently has access to this form of technology," Quintanilla said. "Nor in the text is anything
said about Internet governance. When we all know that this tool is controlled by a single country globally and this
is something which hampers free access to this very important tool."
Internet Misc. - (not sure if these become aff or neg)
Internet would crumble the authoritarian government
O'GRADY 12- MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY, is an editor of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and member of the Wall Street Journal
Editorial Board since 2005. She writes predominantly on Latin America and is a co-editor of the Index of Economic Freedom (“Why Socialist
Cuba Prohibits Social Media”, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2012 6:31 p.m ET,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577299510054444278.html, Accessed: 7/3/13, MC)
'There's a reason the people in Cuba don't have access to the Internet. It is because the
government [couldn't] survive it." That was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio last week at a Washington
conference titled "Cuba Needs a (Technological) Revolution: How the Internet Can Thaw an
Island Frozen in Time." The event was sponsored by Google Ideas, a venture of the giant
Internet search enterprise, and the nonprofit Heritage Foundation. I was asked to kick off things with a Rubio interview. So I began
by asking him what he makes of the Cuban military's reference last year to technology that allows young people to exchange thoughts digitally as
"the permanent battlefield." Columnist Mary O'Grady on her interview with Marco Rubio at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Rubio responded that
it isn't communication with the outside world that the regime fears the most, but Cuban-to-Cuban
chatter. "I think Raúl Castro clearly understands that his regime cannot survive a Cuban reality
where individual Cubans can communicate [with] each other in an unfettered manner." He called
"unfiltered access to the Internet and social media" Cuba's "best hope" of avoiding "a stagnated
dictatorship" for "the next 50 years that would survive even the death of Raul and Fidel."
Mr. Rubio would like to see the U.S. go after the goal of turning Cuba into a Wi-Fi hot spot—
that is, finding a way to provide wireless Internet access to Cubans so they can both receive and
send data in real time. "That's what U.S. policy should really begin to focus on, a 21st-century
effort."
It won't be easy with today's technology. While Internet experts tell me it is possible to expand two-way Wi-Fi
communications to those that the regime has not approved to use its new fiber optic cable, access
would likely be quite limited. Nevertheless, Mr. Rubio's proposal goes to the heart of the Cuban
government's vulnerability.
The pope on his visit to Cuba today will see and hear what the military dictatorship wants him to see and hear, not
the kind of public debate he would witness in a normal country. He will not see what Mr. Rubio is talking about—
emboldened Cuban dissidents who have no use for the "revolution" of a half-century ago and if given access to realtime communications would endeavor to overthrow their oppressors.
"If Cubans were able to communicate with each other, if Cubans in Santiago [de Cuba] were able to figure out what was happening in Havana
and vice versa," Mr. Rubio said, there would be a real chance for change. " If
these groups were able to link up with one
another and coordinate efforts and conversation and so forth, the Cuban government wouldn't
last very long. It would collapse under the weight of that reality."
Some of Mr. Rubio's comments suggest that he is over-optimistic about whether technology can create island hotspots from afar. But if and when it can, there is little doubt that social media would play a role in
bringing about change, as it did, for better or worse, in the overthrow of Egypt's Mubarak.
Closer to home, Mr. Rubio pointed out, it has already made a difference. Referring to the tea party movement, he said, "Fifteen
years ago if you wanted to organize a group of people to do anything politically, you needed a big, burdensome organization to coordinate it.
Today anyone with access to Facebook and Twitter can be an organizer, and it's happening all over this country, it's happening all over the world,
and it will happen in Cuba."
Conventional anti-embargo wisdom holds that hordes of Americans traveling to the island would
undermine the regime. The pro-embargo crowd, including Mr. Rubio, counters that foreigners,
like everything else in Cuba, are tightly controlled. I mentioned that thousands of Americans are already going to Cuba
every year on "educational" travel. Mr. Rubio responded dryly: "Conga dancing [and] ethics briefings from the Castro government, that's the
itinerary."
Internet could transform Cuban economic class divisons
Kalathil & Boas 01- Shanthi Kalathil is an independent consultant on media and development. Shanthi is an expert on media, civil
society, and political transitions. Previously, she was a Senior Democracy Fellow based in the Office of Democracy and Governance at the U.S.
Agency for International Development, where she served as an advisor on civil society and independent media development for Washingtonbased programs and planning, as well as for various USAID missions around the world. She holds a B.A. in Communications from U.C. Berkeley
and a M.Sc. in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Shanthi is particularly interested in issues of
voice and accountability and their impact on political transitions. Taylor C. Boas, The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes:
China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution,
The implications of Internet use in the domestic economy pose a third potential challenge to
the regime. While Cuba has been forced to implement some market reforms during the
economic difficulties of the 1990s, it has generally contained them to the dollar-denominated,
export-oriented sector of the economy. The regime has been quite reluctant to take steps that
could generate class divisions between Cubans, and it looks disapprovingly upon the nouveaux
riches who have emerged from gains in tourism or the informal economy. Although the obstacles
may be significant, the Internet could present another lucrative opportunity for enterprising
Cubans to make money, potentially exacerbating social tensions. Indeed, Cubans have been
allowed to pursue self-employment for several years, and a few have begun doing freelance web
design for international clients. These clients benefit from cheap labor costs, yet still pay more
than Cubans typically earn through most other pursuits.72 But the government still controls
Internet access for this handful of budding entrepreneurs, and as long as access does not become
a freely available commodity, it would be impossible for such activity to grow faster than the
government desires. As such, it is highly unlikely than any sort of “Internet class”
will emerge in
Cuba in the short to medium term.
Cuba is aware of US internet operations
AFP 11- Agence France-Presse a French news agency(“Cuba says prominent blogger part of US 'cyber-war”,
Bangkok Post Tech, 22 Mar
2011 at 22.31, http://wwww.bangkokpost.com/tech/computer/228062/cuba-says-prominent-blogger-part-of-us-cyber-war, Accessed: 7/4/13, MC)
The accusations came in a documentary series aired on state TV in which an engineer from the
information ministry and pro-government bloggers accuse Washington of targeting the country
through "cyber-dissident" proxies.
"There exists on the island a new kind of counterrevolution composed of bloggers... These cyber-mercenaries
constitute a new instrument to create internal conflicts," the documentary said.
Sanchez, 35, an internationally-known blogger and dissident who writes on the site "Generation Y" has long traded
barbs with a regime that accuses her of serving foreign agendas.
In a blog video in response to the latest charges, Sanchez and five other opponents accuse the government of
"demonizing" the internet after revolutions led by online activists brought down longstanding regimes in Egypt and
Tunisia.
"It is nervous because social networks like Twitter and Facebook can play the same role in Cuba they did in Egypt
and Tunisia," it said. The video can be viewed at www.desdecuba.com/generationy.
Last month Cuba hailed the laying of a new undersea fiber-optic cable to Venezuela, which it
said would allow the country to surmount a decades-old US embargo that had forced it to rely on
more expensive satellite connections.
But dissidents have said the government keeps a tight grip on information and communications
to stifle dissent.
ETECSA funds and Embargo fees stop US internet deal
Miroff 10— Nick Miroff, Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost., Miroff was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a
Pulitzer prize for breaking news coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech. His story in the Washington Post on coal miners and painkiller
addiction in Appalachian southwest Virginia was the recipient of a 2008 Nancy Dickerson Award for Excellent in Reporting on Drug and
Alcohol Problems. In 2006, he traveled to Northern Manitoba as part of a radio series on climate change, “Early Signs: Reports from a Warming
Planet” that won a 2006 George Polk Award. Miroff grew up in Albany, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in Spanish and Latin American
literature at University of California Santa Cruz. He holds a master's degree from the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. (“Cuba: No deal
with US telecoms”,globalpost.com, October 18, 2009 17:11Updated May 30, 2010 13:11,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/cuba/091018/cuba-says-no-deal-us-telecoms?page=0,1, Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)
exemptions from long-standing U.S. sanctions
against Cuba’s communist government, so that companies like Verizon, Sprint and AT&T could bring better phone and
The White House announced in April that it would provide
internet service to the island to “promote the freer flow of information.”
But the Castro government exerts strict control over the island’s communication networks, and American
companies would have
to reach a deal with the government’s telecom monopoly, ETECSA.
Months passed without a response to Obama’s proposal. But during an official government newscast Saturday,
ETECSA international operations director Vivian Iglesias said there were two major obstacles to
such a partnership: some $160 million in frozen funds that the U.S. government seized from
ETECSA in 2000, and trade restrictions imposed by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, which
forces Cuba to pay U.S. companies through third countries, incurring additional transaction fees.
“It may seem like the Obama administration has expanded communication possibilities,” said Iglesias. “But we know that unless restrictions like the
(Cuban Democracy Act) and others that have been tightened since 1992 don’t change, there can’t
be any normal communication.” Iglesias’ statements were a reminder that a firewall of mistrust remains between two countries split by 50 years of hostile relations
and emotional politics. Previous agreements between U.S. telecom companies and ETECSA went sour in the late 1990s, when U.S. legislators ordered ETECSA’s funds seized as payment to
Cuban American families who won a wrongful death judgment against the Castro government after four pilots from a Cuban exile group were shot down in a 1996 dispute. Iglesias said that
“If those restrictions don’t
change, that prevents direct communication between the United States and Cuba.”
money was “stolen” from ETECSA, and hasn’t been paid back. “The causes that led to the theft of our funds are still in place,” she said.
Embargo prevents internet access for Cubans
Rodriguez 08 – Andrea Rodriguez, Correspondent at AP (“Cuba blames US for Internet restrictions”,
USAToday, 5/16/08, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-16-1303804967_x.htm?csp=34,
7/4/13, ckr)
A top Cuban official said Friday that Raúl Castro's government would consider loosening Internet
restrictions on ordinary citizens newly allowed to purchase computers -- but Washington's decades-old
economic embargo makes it impossible.
''We aren't worried about the citizenry connecting from their homes,'' Telecommunications Vice Minister Boris
Moreno told a small group of reporters.
''But problems with technology and resources have made it necessary to give priority to
connections that guarantee the country's social and economic development,'' he said, referring to an
islandwide network that lets Cubans receive e-mail and view domestic Web sites.
The rest of the worldwide Web is blocked to most citizens in Cuba, which has access controls far
stricter than in China or Saudi Arabia. Only foreigners and some government employees and
academics are currently allowed unfiltered home Internet service, and many Cubans turn to the black
market for expensive, slow dial-up accounts.
Computers for home use were also not available until two weeks ago, when state stores began selling them to the
public as part of a series of small quality-of-life changes since Raúl Castro replaced his elder brother Fidel in
February.
But Moreno said the government is unable to offer Cubans comprehensive Internet for their new
PCs, citing its long-standing complaint that the American embargo prevents it from getting
service directly from the United States nearby through underwater cables. Instead, Cuba gets Internet
service through less reliable satellite connections, usually from faraway countries including Italy and Canada.
Summit of the Americas
Obama promised SOA we would lift embargo
Swieg 1/25 – Julia Swieg, director of Latin American Relations at the Council on Foreign Relation (“Talking to
Cuba” Council on Foreign Relations, 1/25/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/talking-cuba/p29879, Accessed 6/27/13)
Well, they are interested in using the case as leverage. President Obama, at the first Summit of
the Americas he attended, pledged to open a new chapter in U.S.-Cuban relations and
acknowledged that the embargo and U.S. policy had failed. Then he left in place the very
policies he had inherited from George W. Bush. Some call them democracy promotions; some
call them regime change--explicitly designed to destabilize Cuba. Which is very, very consistent
with the bipartisan approach to Cuba over the last fifty years.
Cuban embargo is a major block in Latin American relations – Summit proves
LA Times 12 – Los Angeles Times, (“Time to Include Cuba”, Article for the LA Times,
4/17/12, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/17/opinion/la-ed-cuba-summit-20120417, Accessed
7/03/13, AW)
Once again, Cuba was absent from the Summit of the Americas. Yet the communist nation
might as well have attended the gathering last weekend in Cartagena, Colombia, because it
took center stage, despite U.S. efforts to focus on other issues. Ecuador's president refused
to attend the summit in protest of Cuba's exclusion. Colombian President Juan Manuel
Santos and Brazil's Dilma Rouseff, both moderates rather than left-wingers, said there
should be no more Summits of the Americas without Cuba. A leftist bloc of nations that
includes Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and some Caribbean countries said it won't participate
again unless Cuba does. And the meeting ended without a final joint declaration because
the United States and Canada refused to agree to language specifying that Cuba would be
invited to future summits. The controversy should serve as a wake-up call to the United
States: The policy of banning Cuba from the gathering of the hemisphere's leaders for
nearly 18 years is backfiring . It hasn't led to regime change any more than the 50-year-old
U.S. trade embargo on Cuba has; it hasn't persuaded President Raul Castro or, before him,
his brother Fidel to embrace democratic reforms, hold free elections or abandon human rights
abuses. Instead, it has fueled frustration among Latin leaders. Today, the United States is
the only country in the hemisphere that has not restored diplomatic relations with Havana.
Even the Organization of American States, sometimes called an instrument of U.S. foreign
policy, cleared the way for Cuba to return to the group in 2009. The Obama administration has
denied that its goal in excluding Cuba is to keep Cuban American voters in Florida happy during
a presidential election year. Whatever the reason, the position is not playing well with leaders in
the region, who see embargoes and political isolation as anachronistic policies from the Cold
War era. The United States should abandon its push to keep Cuba from attending the
Americas summit. Engagement, not isolation, is the best way to encourage change without
alienating allies.
Embargo is a prerequisite to Latin American Relations – Summit of Americas
proves
Suggett 9 – James Sugget, Staff Writer for Venezuela Analysis, (“Obama Should End Cuba
Embargo and Learn About Latin America, Says Venezuela’s Chávez”, Article for Venezuela
Analysis, 3/23/2009, http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4315, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)
On Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said that U.S. President Barack Obama should lift
its economic embargo against Cuba and allow Cuba to attend the upcoming Summit of the
Americas. Chávez also said that President Obama’s negative remarks about Venezuela
reflect ignorance about Latin America.¶ “If Obama wants to achieve better relations with
the [Latin American] region, he should respect everyone equally, starting with Cuba ,”
said Chávez during his weekly presidential talk show Aló Presidente. “He has the moral
obligation to suspend the criminal embargo [against Cuba] and comply with the resolutions
of the United Nations.”¶ President Chávez strongly advocated that Cuba be included in the
Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, which is scheduled for April 17th. “Why
does Cuba continue to be left out of the Summit of the Americas, if Cuba is a friend of Latin
American and Caribbean countries? […] We cannot continue to accept the impositions of
the [United States] empire,” said the president.¶ Chávez said he had prepared to renew
diplomatic relations with the United States and chosen a new ambassador when Obama was
elected to the presidency, but he put these plans “back in the drawer” in January when
Obama said Chávez has “impeded progress in the region” and supported “terrorists,”
alluding to accusations made by the Colombian government last year that Venezuela has
financed Colombian guerrilla troops.¶ “The true obstacle is the empire over which you [Obama]
now preside,” Chávez stated Sunday. “It has dropped atomic bombs on innocent cities, it has
bombarded, invaded, and killed whomever it pleases, and now you are going to accuse me of
exporting terrorism? […] You poor ignorant person, you should study so that you learn the
reality of Latin America and the world!” said Chávez.¶ Chávez and his ally Bolivian President
Evo Morales expelled their respective U.S. ambassadors last September, accusing them of
conspiring with secessionist provincial leaders to destabilize the democratically elected
governments of Chávez and Morales.¶ On Sunday, Chávez reiterated his willingness to renew
diplomatic relations with the United States, as long as the Obama administration shows
respect for Latin America . “We continue hoping, but we are not desperate, ” said
Chávez.¶
Relations
Lifting embargo key to preserving US image
Pomerantz 1/1- Phyllis Pomerantz, licensed clinical social worker. She obtained her social work degree from
New York University in 1994, and has extensive experience with adolescents in a variety of settings during her
training and since obtaining her degree. Ms. Pomerantz provides individual, group and family therapy. Ms.
Pomerantz is a member of the DBT treatment team at Rathbone & Associates. (“Now’s the Time to Lift the U.S.
Embargo on Cuba”, The Globe and Mail, January 1, 2013, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-thetime-to-lift-the-us-embargo-on-cuba/article6790494/, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
The U.S. stand on Cuba is incomprehensible and only serves to look hypocritical and arbitrary in
the eyes of a world that doesn’t understand the intricacies of American politics. Now that the
election is over, there is a window of opportunity to open up a full commercial and diplomatic relationship. Mr.
Obama should use the full extent of his executive powers to immediately relax restrictions, and Congress should
pass legislation lifting the remaining legal obstacles.
It’s time to forget about old grudges and remember that the best way to convert an enemy into a
friend is to embrace him. Instead of admiring Havana’s old cars, Americans should be selling them new ones.
The embargo fails – counterproductive and bad for US image
Edmonds 12 – Kevin Edmonds, writer for the NACLA, focusing on the Caribbean. (“Despite Global
Opposition, United States Votes to Continue Cuban Embargo”, North American Congress on Latin America,
November 15, 2012, https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/15/despite-global-opposition-united-states-votes-continuecuban-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
In many ways, the ongoing Cuban embargo is one of the most symbolic policies of U.S. imperial
control in the Americas. That said, the impact is much more than merely symbolic for the Cuban people, as
according to Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, the embargo is “an act of aggression and a
permanent danger to the stability of the nation.”
While the Cuban embargo was ultimately created to isolate Cuba economically and politically, the routine
imposition of harsher conditions has failed to bring down the Castro government. In 1992, President George
H. Bush signed the Cuban Democracy Act (also known as the Torricelli Act) into law, which forbids subsidiaries of
U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, U.S. nationals from traveling to Cuba and remittances being sent to the
country. The Cuban Democracy Act also attempts to limit the amount of interaction the international
community has with Cuba by “imposing sanctions on any country that provides assistance to Cuba, including
ending U.S. assistance for those countries and by disqualifying them from benefiting from any programme of
reduction or forgiveness of debt owed to the USA.” It was widely assumed that after the fall of the Soviet Union it
would only be a matter of time before Castro fell as well.
When that prediction didn’t materialize, President Bill Clinton signed the internationally condemned Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act in law (more commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act) in March 1996.
This act further deepened the sanctions against Cuba as it sought to “strengthen international sanctions against the
Castro government,” and to “plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected
government in Cuba.” The Helms-Burton Act allowed for any non-U.S. company that dealt with Cuba to be
subjected to legal action and that the respective company's leadership could be barred from entry into the United
States. This essentially meant that many international businesses were blackmailed to choose between operating in
Cuba or the United States—which financially speaking isn’t much of a choice in regards to market size.
Like any embargo—whether in Iran, Gaza, or Cuba—it is the regular people who suffer the most. While
there is a wide disagreement on the exact amount of harm the embargo has done to the Cuban economy, the
estimates range between one and three trillion $US. In 2008, the Indian Delegation to the United Nations stated
that “The negative impact of the embargo is pervasive in the social, economic, and environmental
dimensions of human development in Cuba, severely affecting the most vulnerable socioeconomic groups of
the Cuban population.”
Politics are changing and now is key – new generation, GOP decline, and foreign
opposition to the embargo
Bandow, 12 – Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry.
He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, Wall Street
Journal, and Washington Times. Bandow speaks frequently at academic conferences, on college
campuses, and to business groups. Bandow has been a regular commentator on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,
Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. He holds a J.D. from Stanford University. (“Time to End the Cuba
Embargo”, The National Interest, December 11, 2012, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/thepointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
But the
political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban
Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served
in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now
many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba.
Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly
carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years
ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States.
Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also
would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be
essential politically.
Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul
Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the
years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is
a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think
its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American
embargo.”
There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European
Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana . Spain’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de
Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the
relationship between the European Union and Cuba.
The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President
Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use
his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island.
The embargo must be repealed – US foreign policy
Lloyd 10 – Delia Lloyd, American writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International
Herald Tribune, The Financial Times and The Guardian Weekly. She is a regular contributor to
www.PoliticsDaily.com, a subset of the Huffington Post. (“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”,
Politics Daily, Huffington Post, August 24, 2010, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasonsto-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
3. It's a double standard. Another reason to question the link between the embargo and human rights is that it's a
double standard that flies in the face of U.S. foreign policy toward other high-profile authoritarian
countries, most notably China. Stephen Colbert once quipped that Cuba is "a totalitarian, repressive,
communist state that -- unlike China -- can't lend us money." Unless and until the U.S. pursues a consistent policy of
sanctions against politically repressive regimes, the case against Cuba doesn't hold up very well.
4. It's out of date. To argue that U.S.-Cuban policy is an anachronism is putting it mildly. In an international climate
marked by cooperation on issues ranging from terrorism to global financial crises, holding on to this last vestige
of the Cold War foreign policy no longer makes sense. (Bear in mind that the young people now entering
college were not even alive when Czechoslovakia existed.) Sure, there's still tension between the United States and
Russia. But the recent renegotiation of the START agreement on nuclear proliferation reinforces the notion that the
Cold War is no longer the dominant prism for understanding that bilateral relationship, much less the CubanAmerican one.
Lifting embargo greatly beneficial to US economy and global image
Franks 12 – Jeff Franks, reporter for Reuters, an international news agency founded in London. (“Cuba
says ending U.S. embargo would help both countries”, Reuters, September 20, 2012,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargo-idUSBRE88J15G20120920, accessed:
7-3-13, LR)
(Reuters) - Both the United States and Cuba would benefit if Washington would lift its longstanding trade
embargo against the island, but U.S. President Barack Obama has toughened the sanctions since taking office in
2009, a top Cuban official said on Thursday.
The embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also
has violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off
limits to U.S. companies, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told reporters.
"The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our country and the essential
obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo.
"The blockade provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family, each Cuban
child," Rodriguez said.
He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United
Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month.
Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo,
Rodriguez said.
Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding
that it would also end what he called a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights."
That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government
permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said.
"The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of view," Rodriguez said.
Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any
destination.
Rodriguez said the elimination of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish
U.S. economy.
"In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new
market of 11 million people. It would generate employment and end the situation in which American companies
cannot compete in Cuba," he said.
Overwhelming support for embargo repeal – retaliatory actions growing
Gordon 12 – Joy Gordon, Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, and Senior Fellow at the Global Justice
Program, MacMillan Center for Area and International Studies, Yale University. (“The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba
and the Diplomatic Challenges to Extraterritoriality”, Law Journal Library, Winter 2012,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/forwa36&div=11&g_sent=1&collection=journals, accessed:
7/2/13, LR)
Statements of condemnation
In addition to the WTO action and retaliatory legislation by Canada, Mexico, and the European
Union, U.S. embargo measures have also met broad, consistent international condemnation. In 2009
and 2010, for example, statements of condemnation came from the XV Summit of the Non-Aligned
Movement held in Egypt in 2009," the II Africa-South America Summit (ASA) in 2009,“ the Vll Summit of
the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance For the Peoples of the Americas ( ALBA) in 2009,“ the Unity Summit
of 2010, consisting of the XXI Rio Group Summit and the II Summit of Latin America and the Caribbean on
Integration and Development (CALC)," and the VI Summit of Latin America and the Caribbean and the
European Union.“
UN General Assembly resolutions
It is not surprising that Cuba would have support from the devel-oping world, particularly its trading
partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. A more dramatic demonstration of the breadth of international
opposition to the legality of the U.S. embargo legislation was the series of annual votes before the UN General
Assembly, which began in 1992. After the Torricelli law was passed, Cuba introduced a resolution before
the UN General Assembly that called upon member states not to imple-ment its provisions and
expressed concern about the extraterritorial effects and their consequent violation of the principle of
equal sovereignty." The resolution passed by a vote of 59 to 3, with 71 abstentions and 46 nations not voting.
International support for
Cubans resolutions has grown steadily from 1992 through the present, as states that had abstained in
one voted “yes” the next, and then continue to do so each year. While the I992 resolution had 59 votes in favor, the
next year’s resolution had 88 votes in favor, 4 opposed, and 92 abstaining or not voting. For each of the last several
years, over 180 members – out of 193 in the United Nations – have joined Cuba in condemning this U.S. violation
of international trade law. Most recently, in October 2011, 186 countries voted in support of Cuba’s
resolu-tion, two opposed it, and three abstained.
The embargo decks diplomacy – international response proves
Gordon 12 – Joy Gordon, Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, and Senior Fellow at the Global Justice
Program, MacMillan Center for Area and International Studies, Yale University. (“The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba
and the Diplomatic Challenges to Extraterritoriality”, Law Journal Library, Winter 2012,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/forwa36&div=11&g_sent=1&collection=journals, accessed:
7/2/13, LR)
Many analysts have criticized the U.S. embargo against Cuba as an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War. Yet
its problems go well beyond that. In many regards, the U.S. embargo against Cuba represents a caricature of
the various American misapplications of economic sanctions: if the goal is to end the Castro
regime this policy has not only Failed, but has spent half a century doing so. If the intent is to support Cubans
in their aspirations for a different political system the sanctions have failed in that regard as well, since even the
most vocal dissidents in Cuba criticize the embargo. In the Face of the “smart sanctions" movement to develop
economic tools that target the leadership rather than the people, the embargo against Cuba represents the opposite
pole: it impacts the Cuban population indiscriminately, affecting everything from family travel, to the
publication of scientific articles by Cuban scholars, to the cost of buying chicken For Cuban households.
This article will briefly describe the history and the main compo-nents of the U.S. embargo against Cuba, and the
impact of the unilateral measures on Cubes economy. It will look at some of the ways in which the U.S. embargo is
"extraterritorial"—impacting Cuba’s trade with third countries—as well as ways in which the United States’
unilateral embargo functions in effect as a global measure. It will then examine the over- whelming response
of the international community, and in particular, the United Nations General Assembly, in
condemning the embargo as a viola-tion of international law. This response represents a
diplomatic challenge to the United States that is unparalleled in the last fifty years of global governance.
The embargo fails – hypocritical and regime-strengthening policy
Brush 1/22 – Michael Brush, award-winning New York financial writer who has covered business and
investing for The New York Times, Money magazine and the Economist Group. Michael studied at
Columbia Business School in the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship program. He is the author of "Lessons from
the Front Line," a book offering insights on investing and the markets based on the experiences of
professional money managers. (“Time to Invest in Cuba?”, MSN Money, 1/22/13,
http://money.msn.com/investing/time-to-invest-in-cuba, accessed: 7/2/13, LR)
It is a commendable policy but, sadly, hypocritical. If this were consistent U.S. policy, we'd have no
political or trade relations with Vietnam, Myanmar or even China, says Juan Carlos Hidalgo, a Latin
America policy analyst at the Cato Institute, who notes that each of these countries fails to clear the Helms-Burton
hurdles applied to Cuba.
Thus, the Cuba embargo is a pretty glaring anomaly, which makes it vulnerable. " The only advantage of the
embargo is that it allows the Cuban regime to blame the miserable Cuban economy on 'the
blockade' as they call it," says Hidalgo.
The embargo is also vulnerable because it's an obvious failure. After 50 years of embargo, the Castro brothers
still rule Cuba, notes Tomas Bilbao, the executive director of the Cuba Study Group, a lobbying organization whose
goal is "empowering" Cuban people by helping them start businesses and sell goods abroad. "I think we need to shift
from an obsession with hurting the regime to an obsession with helping the Cuban people," he says.
Embargo theory wrong –not suited for Cuba
Llosa 9 - Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent
Institute, nationally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group and among his books,
Liberty for Latin America, received the Sir Anthony Fisher International Memorial Award for its
contribution to the cause of freedom in 2006. (“Should the Cuban Embargo Be Lifted?”, Real Clear
Politics, April 29, 2009,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/29/should_the_cuban_embargo_be_lifted_96232.html,
accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
But this is not the reasoning coming from the most vocal critics of U.S. sanctions these
days. Many of them fail to even mention the fraud that is a system which bases its
legitimacy on the renunciation of capitalism and at the same time implores capitalism to
come to its rescue. There is also an endearing hypocrisy among those who decry the
embargo but devote hardly any time to denouncing the island's half-century tyranny under
the Castros.
Another risible subterfuge attributes the catastrophe that is Cuba's economy on
Washington's decision to cut off economic relations in 1962 after a wave of expropriations
against American interests. The amnesiacs conveniently forget that in 1958, Cuba's
socioeconomic condition was similar to Spain's and Portugal's and the standard of living of its
citizens was behind only those of Argentines and Uruguayans in Latin America. Many of the
critics also seem to suffer what French writer Jean-Francois Revel used to call "moral
hemiplegia" -- a tendency to see fault only on one side of the political spectrum: I never
heard Cuba's champions complain about sanctions against right-wing dictatorships.
Sometimes, sanctions work, sometimes they don't. A study by Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott,
Kimberly Elliot and Barbara Oegg titled "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered" analyzes
dozens of cases of sanctions since World War I. In about a third of them, they worked
either because they helped to topple the regime (South Africa) or because they forced the
dictator to make major concessions (Libya). Archbishop Desmond Tutu told me a few
months ago in San Francisco that he was convinced that international sanctions were
crucial in defeating apartheid in his home country. In the cases in which the embargo worked,
the sanctions were applied by many countries and the affected regimes were already severely
discredited or weakened.
In the cases in which sanctions have not worked -- Saddam Hussein between 1990 and 2003,
and North Korea today -- the dictatorships were able to isolate themselves from the effects and
concentrate them on the population. In some countries, a certain sense of pride helped defend
the government against foreign sanctions -- which is why the measures applied by the
Soviet Union against Yugoslavia in 1948, China in 1960 and Albania in 1961 were largely
useless.
In the case of Cuba, the Castro regime has been able to whip up a nationalist sentiment against
the U.S. embargo. More significantly, it has managed to offset much of the effects over the years
in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades, because the
regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital after the collapse of the Berlin
Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron.
Castro decline, Obamas’ second term, and international disapproval are all reasons now is
key
Williams 12- Carol Williams, national affairs writer for the LA Times, Former foreign
correspondent, 25 years covering Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. (“Widely
condemned U.S. policy on Cuba unlikely to change soon”, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2012,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/16/world/la-fg-wn-us-cuba-embargo-20121115, accessed:7/4/13,
LR)
But this week's overwhelming international censure of the U.S. embargo against Cuba -- a 188-3
vote of condemnation by the U.N. General Assembly -- was a sobering reminder of how little has changed
between the Cold War adversaries despite President Obama's 2008 campaign vow to end half a century of
ideological standoff.
Foreign policy analysts see possibilities that Obama may have more room to maneuver in a second term.
Younger Cuban Americans care more about staying in touch with family on the communist-ruled island than did
their embittered elders, who fled after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, vowing never to return until Cuba was free of
the leftist firebrand.
Castro, now 86 and ailing, seems likely to be out of the picture within the next four years, say Cuba watchers
who predict the commandante's passing would ignite more profound rethinking of Cuban economic and foreign
policy. Raul Castro, 81, has undertaken modest reforms, but he is seen as a placeholder who will be pushed
aside once his brother dies.
The embargo is counterproductive – costs alliances
Hanson, et. al. 13 – Daniel Hanson, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise
Institute. (“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,” Forbes, 1/16/13,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/,
accessed: 7/2/13, amf)
Moreover, since Europeans,
Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba
unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting
business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations
wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.
Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the
transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in
income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1
percent.
What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less
friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the
construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks
close to its shores.
Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel
restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even
though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a
communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in
November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and
human trafficking propagated by its military government.
Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards
democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back?
The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is
higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their
hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be
accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism.
A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense,
especially when America’s allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader
discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is
time for the embargo to go.
Cuban relations with China and Venezuela saving the regime
Feinberg ‘11 – Richard Feinberg, Richard Feinberg is professor of international political economy at the
Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Feinberg served
as special assistant to President Clinton and senior director of the National Security Council’s Office of InterAmerican Affairs. He has held positions on the State Department's policy planning staff and worked as an
international economist in the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of International Affairs. (“Reaching Out: Cuba’s
New Economy and the International Response,” The Brookings Institute, November 2011,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/11/18-cuba-feinberg, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)
Five decades after Fidel Castro’s “26th of July Movement” marched victoriously into Havana on New Year’s Day,
1959, the United States and Cuba, separated by less than 100 miles of choppy waters, remain deeply distrustful
neighbors entangled in a web of hostilities. Heated U.S. policy debates over how best to respond to the Cuban
Revolution—through legislation in the Congress or executive orders issued by the Executive Branch—implicitly
assume that there are only two players in contention: Washington and Havana. Yet, this conceit
takes us very far from the realities of Cuba today.
Since the collapse of its former patron, the Soviet Union, a resilient Cuba has dramatically diversified its
international economic relations. Initially, Cuba reached out to Europe, Canada, and a widening array of
friendly states in Latin America. Over the last decade, Cuba has reached out to forge economic
partnerships with major emerging market economies—notably China, Brazil, and Venezuela.
Spanish firms manage many of the expanding hotel chains in Cuba that cater to 2.5 million international tourists
each year. A Canadian company jointly owns mining operations that ship high-priced nickel to Canada and China.
In the next few years, China is poised to spend billions of dollars building a large petrochemical
complex at Cienfuegos. A Brazilian firm will modernize the Mariel Port so that it can accommodate very large
container ships transiting the newly widened Panama Canal. Petroleum
companies from ten or more
countries have lined up to explore for deepsea oil in Cuban waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite these advances, the Cuban economy remains in the doldrums (as described in Section 1). The
main constraint slowing the Cuban economy is not U.S. sanctions (even as they have hit hard). Rather,
it is Cuba’s own outdated economic model, inherited from the Soviet Union, of central planning. Cuba’s many
commercial partners would like to invest more in Cuba and would prefer to purchase more
Cuban exports to correct the imbalances in their bilateral trade accounts, but are frustrated by Cuba’s scant
economic offerings.
Section 2 of this policy paper tells the story of Cuba’s outreach to the dynamic emerging market economies, as seen
from the perspective of Cuba and also through the eyes of its Chinese, Brazilian, Venezuelan and Mexican
partners—examining their motivations as well as their anxieties and frustrations. How does Cuba fit into their
international economic and geo-political strategies, and what are the domestic political drivers behind their
friendships with Havana? Canadian interests are also explored, as Ottawa has sharply differentiated its Cuba policy
from those of its close North American ally.
While comprehensive U.S. sanctions attempt to undermine the Cuban economy, European
countries have been sending development assistance, albeit in modest amounts. European aid targets its
resources to empower municipalities, private farmers and cooperatives—to strengthen social forces less dominated
by Havana’s powerful bureaucracies. Section 3 describes these European and Canadian cooperation programs as
well as the creative initiatives of the non-governmental organization Oxfam, and draws lessons—pointing out
potential pitfalls as well as opportunities—for future international development programs operating in the difficult
Cuban context.
Cuba building relations with China now – recent talks
Latino Daily News 6/19– Latino Daily News: Hispanically Speaking News. (“Cuban VP Strengthens Relations
with China on Trip Abroad,” Latino Daily News, 6/19/13, http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-dailynews/details/cuban-vp-strengthens-relations-with-china-on-trip-abroad/25261/, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)
Cuban First Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a new push to
longstanding bilateral relations with a meeting here Tuesday.
“We want you to feel at home,” Xi told Diaz-Canel at the start of the meeting at the Great Hall of the People, which
was only open to the media for a few minutes.
Joined by a large political retinue, Diaz-Canel was the first senior Cuban leader to meet with Xi
since he became China’s president in March.
While the officials’ remarks to the media stayed within the bounds of diplomatic propriety, tangible steps to
boost trade relations and other ties have been taken in recent weeks.
Indeed, Diaz-Canel and Chinese counterpart Li Yuanchao on Monday presided over the signing of
several bilateral cooperation accords.
Those agreements included a donation by the Asian giant, an interest-free loan to Cuba and
another credit for purchases of farm machinery and equipment.
The amounts were not disclosed.
“The two countries have learned from one another during the process of building socialism,” the
Chinese vice president said Monday after a meeting with his Cuban counterpart, the official Xinhua news agency
said.
Diaz-Canel, for his part, said then that Cuba viewed its relations with China “from a strategic
perspective” and was interested in bolstering bilateral cooperation.
Beijing’s Communist Party secretary, Guo Jinlong, and Cuban President Raul Castro also met earlier this
month in Havana, a sit-down that ended with the signing of cooperation accords in the areas of
energy, transportation, tourism and biotechnology.
China is Cuba’s second-largest trading partner with two-way trade valued at more than $2 billion
in 2011, up from $590 million in 2004, according to official figures.
The current embargo prevents cooperation on many issues.
Siegelbaum ‘11 [Portia. September 14. CBS News. Cuba: U.S. embargo causes $1 trillion in losses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20106159-503543.html]
He also noted the embargo interfered with Cuba's cooperation with international agencies giving the example of how in
January 2011, the U.S. Government seized over $4.2 million of funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria because they were earmarked for the implementation of cooperation projects with Cuba.
The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 further codified the original embargo into law so as to maintain sanctions on
Cuba until Havana takes steps toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights ." The Helms-Burton Act
passed by Congress in 1996 added yet further restrictions to prevent U.S. citizens from doing business in or with Cuba. In 1999,
President Bill Clinton expanded the embargo even more by prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with
Cuba. This led among more serious moves to the removal of Cuban-made pajamas from shelves in Wal-Mart in Canada. Clinton
did authorize the sale of certain humanitarian products to Cuba in 2000 only on a cash basis with no credit permitted. The policy
has pitted pro-embargo Cuban-American exiles against many business leaders and agricultural producers who insist trade with
Cuba would benefit American farmers, port workers and others. The U.S. Rice Federation has lobbied hard in Washington
believing that Cuba could once again become the largest foreign market for American grown rice, a position currently
held by Mexico. At present the U.S. State Department says the biggest obstacle to improving relations between the two countries
is the imprisonment of an American aid worker Alan Gross. Gross was arrested in December 2009 and sentenced last March to
15 years in prison for bringing illegal communications equipment into Cuba as part of a program subcontracted to his employer
by USAID. The Cubans say this program and others like it are intended to overthrow throw their government. Moreno refused at
this morning's press conference to respond to a question on Gross. Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson left Havana
this morning after a week's efforts to see the American who is being held in a Havana military hospital. Yesterday Richardson
told foreign journalists in Havana that the Cuban Government had rebuffed all his appeals. Nevertheless, President Obama said
yesterday in Washington that his administration's relaxation of the travel ban that now allows more Americans to visit Cuba on
educational, religious, cultural or people-to-people group trips would remain in effect as would the loosening of restrictions on
the amount and frequency with which Cubans in the U.S. could send money to relatives on the island.
Cuba and Canada have strong relations.
Government of Canada ‘13 -- Government of Canada. (“Canada- Cuba relations”
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/cuba/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_cuba.aspx Accessed:
July 2, 2013. AK_
Canada and Cuba enjoy a broad and diverse relationship built on a long history of mutually
beneficial engagement, important and growing economic and commercial relations, and
strong people-to-people ties across a wide range of sectors and interests. Canada’s
approach is to engage with all elements of Cuban society - government, the business sector,
non-governmental organizations and civil society at large. Canada supports the process of
economic modernization being undertaken by the Cuban government, with greater
opportunities for the development of non-state economic activity and private initiatives.
Building on our successful cooperation experience in areas of economic policy
development and institutional strengthening, Canada will seek to support the Cuban
government’s intention to implement a process of economic modernization.
Cuba and Canada have strong relations.
Government of Canada ‘13 -- Government of Canada. (“Canada- Cuba relations”
http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/cuba/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_cuba.aspx Accessed:
July 2, 2013. AK)
Canada supports a future for Cuba that fully embraces the fundamental values of freedom,
democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada has consistently recognized Cuba’s
strong commitment to economic and social rights, with its particularly important
achievements in the areas of education and health. At the same time, Canada has stressed
the importance of basic civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, association and
the press. Canada’s public advocacy programme in Cuba promotes greater understanding
of Canada and Canadians, and of the Canadian model of a multicultural, democratic and
innovative society. One of the most successful Canadian-inspired events in Cuba is the
annual run in honour of Terry Fox, a cancer victim and national hero who undertook a run
across Canada to raise awareness of the importance of cancer research. The Terry Fox Run
in Cuba has become the largest in the world outside of Canada. Knowledge of Canada, its
history, geography, policies and programs, is also promoted through Canadian Studies
Centres located in six universities across Cuba. Academic cooperation represents one of the
most important aspects of the relationship between Canada and Cuba, with expanding
networks of academics and researchers from both countries working together in a wide
range of disciplines. While the Canadian Embassy in Havana does not directly fund or
facilitate cultural or interpersonal exchanges, cultural and interpersonal ties contribute to
strengthening people-to-people relations between Canadians and Cubans. To learn more
about promoting Canadian culture and funding Canadian cultural projects, please consult
Canadian Heritage or the Canadian Council for the Arts. For additional information, read
our cultural FAQs for Canadians interested in Cuba. Cuba is the third most popular overseas
destination for Canadians (after the United States and Mexico) and Canada is Cuba’s largest
source of tourists, with over one million Canadians visiting annually (more 40 per cent of
all visitors to Cuba). The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) manages
Canada's bilateral development assistance program in Cuba. Current program priorities are
sustainable economic growth and food security. Canada and Cuba have a well-established,
significant and growing commercial and investment relationship. Cuba is Canada’s top
market in the Caribbean/Central American sub-region and bilateral merchandise trade
between the two countries is over one billion dollars annually. Canadian companies have
significant investments in mining, power, oil and gas, agri-food and tourism.
Appointment of Diaz Canel does not mean normalization of relations.
Alam ‘13 Hannah Alam. Hannah is a writer for the Miami herald. (“Even if Raul Castro steps
down in 2018, U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw”. Miami Herald. McClatchy Newspapers. 2/25/13.
Accessed: July 2, 2013.)
Castro’s announcement over the weekend that he’ll step
down in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials
contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regime’s
reforms amount to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations
WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul
with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and
his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also
would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are
hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are
hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say
will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw
Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later
remains in place. “Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not going to melt overnight,”
said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral
relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest
moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable
successor before they’re too infirm to administer the country. Raul Castro’s anointing of Communist Party
stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the
president’s speech, several analysts agreed. “It doesn’t mean he’s being chosen to succeed Raul, but
it does mean they’re leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders,”
Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is “an impressive career politician,” said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban American professor
of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the Communist
Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the party’s political
bureau and one of the Castro’s gaggle of vice presidents. “In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that
have positioned him well for the eventual succession,” Dominguez said. “He has also been traveling abroad with
Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume.” When Castro elevated DiazCanel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was an expiration date
for Castro rule of Cuba. “It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was
anointed, and none had a formal designation as the successor,” Dominguez said. “Sure, there will be political fights
in the future. Theirs is a political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But DiazCanel is now the frontrunner.” The Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well
in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S.
senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned
on the island for illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building
program.
Cuba- US trade growing now.
Perales ‘10 -- Jose Perales. Perales is a senior program associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American
Program. The Woodrow Wilson Center is one of Washington’s most respected institutions of policy research and public
dialogue. Created by an act of Congress in 1966, the Center is a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson and his
ideals of a more informed public policy commu- nity in Washington. It supports research on in- ternational policy issues;
organizes conferences, seminars, and working groups; and offers resi- dential fellowships for scholars, journalists and
policymakers. Center director Lee H. Hamilton is a widely respected former member of Congress who chaired the House
International Relations Committee. The Latin American Program focu- ses attention on U.S.-Latin American relations
and important issues in the region, including democratic governance, citizen security, peace processes, drug policy,
decentralization, and economic development and equality. (“The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic
Relationship” WOODROW WILSON CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf August 2010 Accessed: July 3, 2013. AK)
The last decade has been marked by a significant growth in economic ties between the United
States and Cuba, a response to the partial relaxation of certain embargo restrictions, explained José Raú l
Perales, Senior Program Associate of the Latin American Program.This has been particularly true within
the agriculture and tourism industries. For instance, in 2000 the United States implemented the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act; in the following eight years bilateral
agricultural trade and farm sales more than tripled. Furthermore, since 2003, the United States has
supplied annually more agricultural products to Cuba than any other nation; from 2003 to 2008 an
estimated 35 percent of Cuba’s agricultural imports came from the United States. In terms of tourism, it is
estimated that, by eliminating current restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba, the island nation could
expect 500,000 to one million tourism-related U.S. visits per annum.This would not only be a boost
to the U.S. travel industry, it would also fundamentally transform the landscape of the entire Caribbean
tourism industry. These data hint at the many benefits to a deeper U.S.- Cuban economic relationship.
However, there are important pitfalls associated with deeper economic relations. In a April 29, 2010,hearing
on H.R.4645,theTravel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (designed to remove obstacles to
legal sales of U.S.agricultural commodities to Cuba—by eliminating the cash- in-advance provision required
for all such sales to Cuba—and to end travel restrictions on all Americans to Cuba), Representative Kevin
Brady (R-TX), the Republican ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, outlined some of
these drawbacks. Cuba’s economic climate is intolerant of U.S. firms: there exists no accord on U.S. individual
or corporate property claims. Indeed, in spite of the Obama administration’s move to allow U.S.
telecommunication firms to apply for licenses to conduct business in Cuba, few such companies have rushed
in. This is in no small part due to the important challenges associated with policy unpredictability under the
current Cuban regime, not to mention significant questions arising from issues of human rights and labor
relations. In spite of these considerations, at the time of this publication, H.R. 4645 had been approved in the
House Agriculture Committee and awaited further consideration on the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services
committees before reaching the House floor.
Baby steps aren’t enough.
Perales ‘10 -- Jose Perales. Perales is a senior program associate at the Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American
Program. Christopher Sabatini is the senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas. The
Woodrow Wilson Center is one of Washington’s most respected institutions of policy research and public dialogue.
Created by an act of Congress in 1966, the Center is a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson and his ideals of a
more informed public policy commu- nity in Washington. It supports research on in- ternational policy issues; organizes
conferences, seminars, and working groups; and offers resi- dential fellowships for scholars, journalists and
policymakers. Center director Lee H. Hamilton is a widely respected former member of Congress who chaired the House
International Relations Committee. The Latin American Program focu- ses attention on U.S.-Latin American relations
and important issues in the region, including democratic governance, citizen security, peace processes, drug policy,
decentralization, and economic development and equality. (“The United States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic
Relationship” WOODROW WILSON CENTER LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf August 2010 Accessed: July 3, 2013. AK)
Sabatini noted that the ability to affect significant change on the embargo falls within the scope
of executive regulatory authority, particularly in areas such as telecommunications and some elements of travel—
particularly in licensing for cultural and educational exchanges and even some elements of marketing trips. In this sense
the Obama administration took a first step on April 13, 2009, when [he] President Obama announced an
increased allowance for U.S. telecommunications companies to establish licensing agreements to
allow roaming coverage on the island and establish a fiberoptic cable to Cuba, with the stated purpose
of helping Cubans communicate with the rest of the world. However, according to Sabatini, it turned out that despite
the fanfare, the regulations that came out of the U.S. bureaucracy five months later did little
realistically to allow U.S. companies to establish the necessary and sufficient links to allow
broad communication between Cubans and the rest of the world. For instance, in his announcement,
President Obama called for the establishment of a fiberoptic cable linking Cuba to the outside world. However,
regulations prohibiting U.S. equipment transfers or sales to the island for commercial purposes
persist. Similarly, the regulations continued to prevent the sale of handsets on the island for commercial purposes and
blocks infrastructure investments such as cell phone towers, routers, and switchers. All of these sorts of now-prohibited
equipment is essential if there is to be any meaningful broad- based access to the tools of communication.
After Chavez, A chance to rethink relations
White ’13 --
Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States ambassador to Paraguay from
1977 to 1979 and to El Salvador from 1980 to¶ 1981. (“ After Chavez, A Chance to Rethink Relations”, The New York Times, March 7, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)¶ FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its
security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe
Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, the postwar treaty that pledged the United States to come to the
defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors
have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo
Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States
among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with
potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as
a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule
of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose
(if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from CubanAmerican lawmakers in Congress.¶ An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States
wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas. ¶ I joined the State Department as a
Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative
response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired
revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule
in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent
revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the
hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars
to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the
Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy’s
assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the
proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders
were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States
abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported
dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state,
Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American
churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. ¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving
the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped
expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After
our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND
Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the
insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to
the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.” ¶ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a
series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them,
longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which
excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United
States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of
empire.”¶ Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the
United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a
source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of
these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president
of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶
Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to
renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay
of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the
clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk
hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred
of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of
Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American
relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) ¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy
where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The
reelection of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the
irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should
quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the
Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶
Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a
multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of
democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments. ¶ If, however, our present
policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States
versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and
Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters
of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
U.S. Constituencies want to normalize relations with Cuba
Hanson and Lee ’13, Stephanie Hanson, associate director and coordinating editor of the Council on Foreign Relations. Brianna Lee, Senior
Production Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations. (“U.S.-Cuba Relations”, Council on Foreign Relations, January 13, 2013,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113#p3, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)¶ What is U.S. public opinion on
the isolation of Cuba?¶ 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
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.¶ Ending the economic embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in Congress
based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're polled,
are mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario
Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many
favor improving relations with Cuba. In 2009,
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report
calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and
deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF).
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican
Lifting Embargo key to Regional Relations
Sheridan ’09 , Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post Reporter (“U.S. Urged to Relax Cuba Policy to Boost Regional Relations”, the Washington Post, May 29, 2009,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-29/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)
Eliminating the Cold War-era ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS, the main forum
for political cooperation in the hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly
assertive Latin America. The wrangling over Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras.¶ ¶ "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba its litmus test for its commercial and
diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Now, she said, Latin countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to Latin America." ¶ ¶
President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and
offering to restart immigration talks suspended in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes
¶
democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail congressional action. ¶ ¶ Obama
is facing
pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and from key U.S. lawmakers.
Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel restrictions and ease the
embargo.¶ ¶ Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the U.S. gestures.¶ ¶ Latin American leaders say that
isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in the region have established relations with
communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962
suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has
suggested that OAS members could postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic reforms. ¶ ¶ Cuban exile organizations and some
U.S. lawmakers are strongly opposed to readmitting the island.¶ ¶ "If we invite Cuba back in, in spite of their violations, what message are we
sending to the rest of the hemisphere -- that it's okay to move backwards away from democracy and human rights, that there will be no
repercussions for such actions?" Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban American, demanded in a speech. He threatened to cut off U.S.
funding for the OAS -- about 60 percent of its budget -- if the measure passed.¶ ¶ Clinton said last week that Cuba should be readmitted only if it
abided by the OAS's Democratic Charter, a set of principles adopted in 2001 that commits countries to hold elections and to respect human rights
and press freedoms.¶ ¶ Most Latin American countries broke relations with Cuba after its 1959 revolution. Nearly all have restored diplomatic
ties, and the United States will soon be the only holdout in the hemisphere. ¶ ¶ The Cuba ban could be lifted by a two-thirds vote of the OAS
foreign ministers on Tuesday. However, the organization generally works by consensus, and several countries have indicated they do not want a
showdown with the United States.¶ ¶ Diplomats have been trying in recent days to hammer out a compromise. U.S. diplomats introduced a
resolution that would instruct the OAS to open a dialogue with Cuba about its "eventual reintegration," consistent with the principles of
"democracy and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."¶ ¶ A diplomat said last night that the United States appears to be
softening its opposition to lifting the ban as long as Cuba's full reinstatement is contingent on moving toward democracy. He spoke on the
condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.¶ ¶ Venezuela, an ally of Cuba, has indicated it will not support any resolution that
includes such conditions. "This is 'Jurassic Park,' " fumed Venezuelan Ambassador Roy Chaderton. "We're still in the Cold War."¶ ¶ Some Latin
American diplomats worry that the Cuba imbroglio (misunderstanding) could further marginalize the OAS. The organization is respected for
monitoring elections, and it has tried to broker disputes in the hemisphere. But critics lambaste it as largely a debating society.¶ ¶ Venezuela has
threatened to quit the organization and form an alternative regional group. It has set up a leftist trade alliance known as ALBA with several poor
countries in Latin America. Cuba has derided the OAS as a U.S.-dominated tool of the United States.¶ ¶ Peter Hakim, president of the InterAmerican Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, said the Cuba resolution has trapped the Obama administration between two of its priorities:
democracy promotion and better relations with its neighbors. In 2001, the U.S. government supported the Democratic Charter, a milestone in a
region once known for dictatorships. But Obama told hemispheric leaders in Trinidad and Tobago last month that he wanted to form closer
partnerships and not have the United States dictate policy.¶ ¶ "There's
really two different values at play here:
multilateralism versus democracy. You can't have multilateralism and then let one country, i.e.
the U.S., make the decision for a multilateral organization," Hakim said.
Lifting the embargo makes the US more credible
Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (“KISS THE EMBARGO
GOODBYE”, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY)
The United States has a motive and a history of operating against the Cuban ¶ government, and therefore against the Cuban people. The proof that
The government uses the ¶ embargo as the
only excuse for maintaining its internal security apparatus. If we were ¶ to drop the embargo, either
Cuba would have to dismantle its security apparatus, or be ¶ revealed as being hypocritical. Either
result would be good for both the United States ¶ and the Cuban people. Dismantling the repressive security
the United States is ¶ still operating against them is obvious—the embargo.
structure would provide a ¶ modicum of freedom for the Cubans. Maintaining the security apparatus would ¶ significantly delegitimize the Cuban
government domestically and internationally and ¶ could only hasten the demise of the current system.¶ Lifting
the embargo would
be a strong sign to the international community that the ¶ United States is magnanimous and
inclusive. Maintaining it makes us look petty and ¶ vindictive to the rest of the world. We cannot
convince anyone that Cuba is a threat to ¶ the United States, nor can we make the case internationally that more of the same will ¶ have a positive
impact. Lifting
the embargo would signal that we are ready to try ¶ something different to bring
democracy to Cuba.
Lifting the embargo improves democracy, relations, and US global reputation
Hanson, Batten, & Ealey 1/16 --- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten & Harrison Ealey, Daniel Hanson is an economics
researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public
Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst (“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba”, January 16, 2013,
Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed June 28,
2013, MY)
For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission
from their government. The move, part of a broader reform package being phased in by Raul
Castro, underscores the irrationality of America’s continuation of a five-decade old embargo.¶
While the embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a
hardline not-in-my-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The
official position is outdated,
hypocritical, and counterproductive.¶ The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in
1960 as a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the
embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act – aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic
sanctions, travel restrictions, and international legal penalties.¶ Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the
government has
undertaken more than 300 economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and
restrictions have been lifted on property use, travel, farming, municipal governance, electronics
access, and more. Cuba is still a place of oppression and gross human rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the
11 million person nation is moving in the right direction.¶ Despite this progress, the U.S. spends
massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods out of the United States. At least 10
different agencies are responsible for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the
U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year.¶ At the
Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs
inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control inspections each year
are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government
resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade
from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum.¶ At present, the U.S. is largely alone in
restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and
allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been
publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out
trade and migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the
Castro takeover have dropped their claims.¶ Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba
unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly
higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy
to conduct exchanges.¶ Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial
infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like
Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.¶ What’s
worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to
collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in
2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater
communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the
embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries
who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal
trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their
human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in
November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated
by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards
democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back?¶ The cost of the embargo to the United States is
high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their
hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American
charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism.¶ A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little
sense, especially when America’s
allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion
about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to
go.
Lifting the embargo increases our sphere of influence
Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (“Four Decades of Failure:
The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargoagainst-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip
Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that 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 farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.¶ Second, restrictions
on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private
sector, encourage Cuba’s modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the
government.¶ Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by
private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks,
not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose
banning the use of private commercial credit.¶ Finally, the
Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law,
like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact,
undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.¶ Lifting or modifying the
embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement
that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best
way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to
criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while
allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below.¶ We should apply
the president’s sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba
will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new
ideas.¶ How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
People don't want the embargo anymore
Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (“KISS THE EMBARGO
GOODBYE”, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY)
Although many believe there is unity in thinking among all Cubans in the United ¶ States,
conversations with people from each of these groups demonstrate that this is not ¶ true. Although the
diminishing group of original exiles still tends to be extremely antiCastro, many of the others just want the whole thing to end
so that they can either go ¶ home, or get this all behind them. Others just want to be able to help
their families at ¶ home or be free to travel back and forth at will. The offspring of the original
exiles (the ¶ oldest of whom are now in their early 50s) tend to be anti-Castro, however many of ¶ them are not as enthusiastic as
their parents about overthrowing the Revolution. Most ¶ desire that the Castro regime go away and Cuba be free, but they
feel that time will ¶ make this happen, and they are not usually dedicated to this cause like their parents. In ¶ private conversation, however, a
trend appears. Very
few Cubans in the United States ¶ actually want the embargo to continue.
Now is the time for engagement, diplomatic transition, Florida, and Kerry
Padgett 7/3 --- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin America and the Caribbean
from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25 years, graduate of Northwestern University (“Why This Summer Offers Hope
For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations”, July 3, 2013, WLRN, http://wlrn.org/post/why-summer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, accessed
July 3, 2013, MY)
And yet, despite
all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love on the
Florida Straits? Last month the Obama Administration and the Castro dictatorship started talks
on re-establishing direct mail service; this month they’ll discuss immigration guidelines. Diplomats on
both sides report a more cooperative groove.¶ New Diplomacy¶ So what happened that’s suddenly
making it possible for the two governments to start some substantive diplomatic outreach for the first
time in years?¶ First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cuba’s threadbare economy, and the results
scared him more than one of Yoani Sánchez’s dissident blog posts. To wit, the island’s finances are held up by little more than European tourists
and oil charity from socialist Venezuela.
He’s adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make
them work he has to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two.¶ That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely
abroad, which gives them better opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business
leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, “The timing is right” for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement.¶ “Cuba
is clearly in a transitionary mode,” says Saladrigas. “They need to change to reinsert themselves
in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations.Ӧ
Changing Attitudes¶ Second, although the White House is still intimidated by the Cuban exile lobby, it’s had its own numbers to ponder -namely, poll results from South Florida’s Cuban-American community.¶ Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that .¶
Over
the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that Cuban-Americans, especially the more
moderate younger generation and more recently arrived Cubans, favor engagement with Cuba as
a way of promoting democratization there. Some polls even indicate that a majority want to ditch
the failed 51-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.¶ As a result, Obama -- who according to one exit poll won
48% of Florida’s Cuban vote in last year’s presidential election, which would be a record for a Democratic candidate -- feels more elbow room
for diálogo with the Castro regime. The Administration even recently let González return to Cuba.¶ “The
Cuban-American
community in Miami is definitely changing,” says Cuban-American Elena Freyre, president of the Foundation for
Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in Miami. “It’s reached kind of a critical mass at this point, and I think people are ready to try something
different.”¶ Freyre notes that Obama’s appointment this year of former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the new U.S. secretary of state is
also having an impact.¶ “Mr.
Kerry has always felt [the U.S.’s] position with Cuba made no sense,” she
says. “He’s been very vocal about thinking that if we engage Cuba we will get a lot further.” Kerry,
for example, believes the U.S. should lift its ban on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba.
The time is right, US and Cuba moving forward on relations
Haven 6/21 --- Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana (“Cuba, US Try Talking, but Face Many Obstacles”, June
21, 2013, Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-us-talking-face-obstacles-19457659#.Uc2ttT7wJ9k,
accessed June 28, 2013, MY)
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.
President Raul 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 publically
accusing them of being CIA front-men. 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 traveled 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. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
Embargo doesn’t work and only hurts international relations
Hanson et al 13- Daniel Hanson, economics researcher at the American Enterprise
Institute, Dayne Batten, affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of
Public Policy ,Harrison Ealey, financial analyst, (“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of
Cuba,” 1/16/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, 7/2/13, CAS)
At present, the
U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point
of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since
1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive
and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S.
companies nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims.
Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba
unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of
conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American
multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct
exchanges.
Lifting the embargo reduces international perception of the U.S. as punitive and
hypocritical
Dickerson 10 – Sergio Dickerson, Lt.Col. in U.S. Army [“United States Security Strategy in Cuba”, DTIC, 1/14/10,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, accessed: 7/3/13, JK]
The argument can also be made that the U.S. has foreign relations with China, Saudi Arabia and other non-democratic governments while
applying a different standard towards Cuba. With
growing perception that Cuba no longer poses a credible
threat to the U.S., it appears that U.S. policy has changed from coercive to punitive following the
end of the Cold War. With a renewed focus on multilateralism, President Obama could go a long
way to break this image by spreading the seeds of a “new beginning” in U.S.-Cuba relations
The embargo is counterproductive – costs alliances
Hanson, et. al. 13 – Daniel Hanson, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise
Institute. (“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,” Forbes, 1/16/13,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-ofcuba/, accessed: 7/2/13, amf)
Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba
unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of
conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational
corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.
Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack
the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real
reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate
currently stands at 8.1 percent.
What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less
friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the
construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned
networks close to its shores.
Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel
restrictions to countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms
even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights
practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading
partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year
history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government.
Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards
democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back?
The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is
higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their
hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be
accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism.
A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little
sense, especially when America’s allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a
broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic
sense. It is time for the embargo to go.
Cuban relations with China and Venezuela saving the regime
Feinberg 11 – Richard Feinberg, Richard Feinberg is professor of international political economy at the
Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Feinberg
served as special assistant to President Clinton and senior director of the National Security Council’s Office of
Inter-American Affairs. He has held positions on the State Department's policy planning staff and worked as
an international economist in the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of International Affairs. (“Reaching Out:
Cuba’s New Economy and the International Response,” The Brookings Institute, November 2011,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/11/18-cuba-feinberg, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)
Five decades after Fidel Castro’s “26th of July Movement” marched victoriously into Havana on New Year’s
Day, 1959, the United States and Cuba, separated by less than 100 miles of choppy waters, remain deeply
distrustful neighbors entangled in a web of hostilities. Heated U.S. policy debates over how best to respond to
the Cuban Revolution—through legislation in the Congress or executive orders issued by the Executive
Branch—implicitly assume that there are only two players in contention: Washington and
Havana. Yet, this conceit takes us very far from the realities of Cuba today.
Since the collapse of its former patron, the Soviet Union, a resilient Cuba has dramatically diversified
its international economic relations. Initially, Cuba reached out to Europe, Canada, and a widening
array of friendly states in Latin America. Over the last decade, Cuba has reached out to forge
economic partnerships with major emerging market economies—notably China, Brazil, and
Venezuela. Spanish firms manage many of the expanding hotel chains in Cuba that cater to 2.5 million
international tourists each year. A Canadian company jointly owns mining operations that ship high-priced
nickel to Canada and China. In the next few years, China is poised to spend billions of dollars
building a large petrochemical complex at Cienfuegos. A Brazilian firm will modernize the Mariel
Port so that it can accommodate very large container ships transiting the newly widened Panama Canal.
Petroleum companies from ten or more countries have lined up to explore for deepsea oil
in Cuban waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite these advances, the Cuban economy remains in the doldrums (as described in Section 1).
The main constraint slowing the Cuban economy is not U.S. sanctions (even as they have hit
hard). Rather, it is Cuba’s own outdated economic model, inherited from the Soviet Union, of central planning.
Cuba’s many commercial partners would like to invest more in Cuba and would prefer to
purchase more Cuban exports to correct the imbalances in their bilateral trade accounts, but are
frustrated by Cuba’s scant economic offerings.
Section 2 of this policy paper tells the story of Cuba’s outreach to the dynamic emerging market economies, as
seen from the perspective of Cuba and also through the eyes of its Chinese, Brazilian, Venezuelan and Mexican
partners—examining their motivations as well as their anxieties and frustrations. How does Cuba fit into
their international economic and geo-political strategies, and what are the domestic political drivers behind
their friendships with Havana? Canadian interests are also explored, as Ottawa has sharply differentiated its
Cuba policy from those of its close North American ally.
While comprehensive U.S. sanctions attempt to undermine the Cuban economy, European
countries have been sending development assistance, albeit in modest amounts. European aid
targets its resources to empower municipalities, private farmers and cooperatives—to strengthen social
forces less dominated by Havana’s powerful bureaucracies. Section 3 describes these European and Canadian
cooperation programs as well as the creative initiatives of the non-governmental organization Oxfam, and
draws lessons—pointing out potential pitfalls as well as opportunities—for future international development
programs operating in the difficult Cuban context.
Cuba building relations with China now – recent talks
Latino Daily News 6/19/13 – Latino Daily News: Hispanically Speaking News. (“Cuban VP Strengthens
Relations with China on Trip Abroad,” Latino Daily News, 6/19/13,
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/latino-daily-news/details/cuban-vp-strengthens-relations-withchina-on-trip-abroad/25261/, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)
Cuban First Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a new push
to longstanding bilateral relations with a meeting here Tuesday.
“We want you to feel at home,” Xi told Diaz-Canel at the start of the meeting at the Great Hall of the People,
which was only open to the media for a few minutes.
Joined by a large political retinue, Diaz-Canel was the first senior Cuban leader to meet with
Xi since he became China’s president in March.
While the officials’ remarks to the media stayed within the bounds of diplomatic propriety, tangible steps
to boost trade relations and other ties have been taken in recent weeks.
Indeed, Diaz-Canel and Chinese counterpart Li Yuanchao on Monday presided over the
signing of several bilateral cooperation accords.
Those agreements included a donation by the Asian giant, an interest-free loan to Cuba and
another credit for purchases of farm machinery and equipment.
The amounts were not disclosed.
“The two countries have learned from one another during the process of building
socialism,” the Chinese vice president said Monday after a meeting with his Cuban counterpart, the official
Xinhua news agency said.
Diaz-Canel, for his part, said then that Cuba viewed its relations with China “from a strategic
perspective” and was interested in bolstering bilateral cooperation.
Beijing’s Communist Party secretary, Guo Jinlong, and Cuban President Raul Castro also met earlier this
month in Havana, a sit-down that ended with the signing of cooperation accords in the
areas of energy, transportation, tourism and biotechnology.
China is Cuba’s second-largest trading partner with two-way trade valued at more than $2
billion in 2011, up from $590 million in 2004, according to official figures.
Lifting the embargo makes the US more credible
Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies
Institute (“KISS THE EMBARGO GOODBYE”, February 2009, SSI,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4,
2013,MY)
The United States has a motive and a history of operating against the Cuban ¶ government, and therefore against the Cuban people. The
The government uses the ¶
embargo as the only excuse for maintaining its internal security apparatus. If we were ¶ to
drop the embargo, either Cuba would have to dismantle its security apparatus, or be ¶ revealed
as being hypocritical. Either result would be good for both the United States ¶ and the
Cuban people. Dismantling the repressive security structure would provide a ¶ modicum of freedom for the Cubans. Maintaining
proof that the United States is ¶ still operating against them is obvious—the embargo.
the security apparatus would¶ significantly delegitimize the Cuban government domestically and internationally and ¶ could only hasten
the demise of the current system.¶ Lifting
the embargo would be a strong sign to the international
community that the ¶ United States is magnanimous and inclusive. Maintaining it makes us
look petty and ¶ vindictive to the rest of the world. We cannot convince anyone that Cuba is a threat to ¶ the
United States, nor can we make the case internationally that more of the same will ¶ have a positive impact. Lifting the embargo
would signal that we are ready to try ¶ something different to bring democracy to Cuba.
Lifting the embargo is key to Obama’s credibility- solves a litany of global conflicts
Dickerson 10- Lieutenant Colonel Sergio M. Dickerson of the US Army War College, (“United
States Security Strategy Towards Cuba,” 1/14/10, Strategic Research Project,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518053-Accessed-6-27-13,RX)
Today, 20 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – it’s
time to chip away at the diplomatic wall that
still remains between U.S. and Cuba. As we seek a new foreign policy with Cuba it is imperative that we
take into consideration that distrust will characterize negotiations with the Cuban
government. On the other hand, consider that loosening or lifting the embargo could also be mutually
beneficial. Cuba’s need and America’s surplus capability to provide goods and services
could be profitable and eventually addictive to Cuba. Under these conditions, diplomacy
has a better chance to flourish.
If the Cuban model succeeds President Obama will be seen as a true leader for
multilateralism. Success in Cuba could afford the international momentum and credibility to solve
other seemingly “wicked problems” like the Middle East and Kashmir. President Obama could leverage this
international reputation with other rogue nations like Iran and North Korea who might associate their
plight with Cuba.35 The U.S. could begin to lead again and reverse its perceived decline in the
greater global order bringing true peace for years to come.
Lifting the Embargo key to boost relations with Europe, South America, and Canada
Hanson, Batten and Ealey, 1/16- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten, and Harrison Ealey. Daniel is an
economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, Dayne is affiliated with the UNC Department of
Public Policy, and Ealy is a financial analyst at Forbes, (“It’s Time for the U.S. to End its Senseless Embargo of
Cuba” Forbes 1/16/13 http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/Accessed-7-2-13-RX)
At present, the
U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a
point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and
Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for
maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba
despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover
have dropped their claims.
US-Canada relations key to solve oil, the environment, disease, and terror
Milne 2007- Noella Milne, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Canada's oldest and largest speakers'
forums with a membership comprised of some of Canada's most influential leaders from the professions,
business, labour, education and government, (“Canada-U.S. Relations: Our Common Cause Agenda in a
Perilous World,” January 22 2007 http://speeches.empireclub.org/62962/data-Accessed-7-2-13-RX)
In the energy field, Canada and the U.S. have a strong relationship, with the U.S. being the
world's largest energy producer, consumer and importer, and Canada the largest foreignenergy supplier to the United States of oil, natural gas, uranium and electricity. We both see eyeto-eye on the importance of a market-based approach to energy resource development--our oil sands being a great example, growing
from a pipe dream in the early '80s to production today of a million barrels a day, on the way to three million or more by 2015.¶ We
see increasing amounts of oil and natural gas production being controlled by government-Russia, for example, using its energy strength for wider geo-political ends. Also
nationalization by Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.¶ At the recent G-8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Prime Minister
Harper succeeded in getting the market-based approach to energy resources development agreed in a number of important texts. ¶ In
our approach to environmental stewardship, the United States and Canada both afford an
important role to technology and innovation as important means of addressing global
challenges and finding solutions. For example, we are already partners, along with other countries and the private sector,
in the Weyburn project in Saskatchewan to study the possibility of capturing and storing carbon dioxide in geological forms such as oil
fields.¶ Another
area of multilateral co-operation where the embassy has been active has been
the preparedness for pandemics . Canada and the United States are concerned about the
potential for a human influenza pandemic that would have significant global health,
economic and social consequences. Canada, drawing on our SARS experience, and the United States have worked
together to raise international consciousness and preparedness for another pandemic. ¶ While the pandemic threat is
global, the co-ordinated response must be also at the regional and country level. And in this
regard, Canada and the United States have each developed its own Influenza Pandemic response plans, which are continually updated
and shared. We at the embassy follow this issue closely.¶ I would like to add a final area of common endeavour--one closer to home. It is
directed towards the most important responsibility a government has. That
is to protect and defend the freedom,
independence and sovereignty of our two countries.¶ NORAD is an emblem of common
endeavour. It stands for shared strategic vision for defence of the continent, shared
decision making, and unrivalled interoperability of our personnel, radars and aircraft.¶
NORAD is evolving in the post 9/11 world. Last year, we renewed the NORAD agreement in
perpetuity, ending the previous five-year cycles. The new agreement gives NORAD added
responsibility for maritime warning.¶ We have a proud tradition and history of Canada-U.S. defence co-operation-arguably the most complex in the world. Over 80 treaty-level agreements, and more than 250 memoranda of understanding.¶ More than
600 members of the Canadian Forces serve in the U.S. and on exchange with U.S. forces. Canadian Forces have the distinction of being the
most interoperable with the United States of any of the NATO allies. We train together, patrol together, serve together. ¶ The Defense
Development and Defense Production Sharing Agreements manage defence industry trade, and the related research and development-approximately $2 billion in trade flows annually. We are an integral part of the U.S. defence industrial and technology base and the
largest foreign supplier, contributing to both economic growth and jobs on both sides of the border, and to the interoperability of our
forces in the field. One example is the current Joint Strike Fighter project, supporting interoperability but also access to up to $8 billion in
industrial participation opportunities.¶ The embassy in Washington plays a key part in this activity. We have an active and robust
Defense Liaison Office, which interacts daily with our Department of National Defense on policy and operational issues, including cooperation on Afghanistan.¶ I myself have already visited NORAD twice, and the AWACS base in Oklahoma once, to underscore the
importance Canada attaches to this relationship. The embassy has taken a lead role in addressing the current ITARS problem, in defence
procurement, and tomorrow, we host a visit of the Minister of National Defence to his new U.S. counterpart. On Capitol Hill, our job is to
make members of Congress aware of the significant Canadian role in defending the continent and our major contribution to the campaign
in Afghanistan.¶ Before I conclude, I want to come back to perhaps our greatest personal and economic common cause--"daily" life along
our shared borders--whether it be truckers delivering auto parts between Windsor and Detroit, day shoppers travelling between
Montreal and Plattsburg, or friends and family making a spontaneous trip across the border to visit one another in Toronto or Buffalo or
Vancouver and Bellingham.¶ The
shared protection and mobility across our shared border is our
most important economic bi-lateral common cause issue with the United States. After all, the
border is not an imaginary line across the 49th parallel; it is an ever-evolving complex entity that interconnects our lives, our economies
and our continued prosperity.¶ Canada has seen a gradual thickening of the border over the past four years, initiatives that jeopardize
our long-standing commercial and people-to-people connections.¶ Recently we have seen measures introduced in food inspection and
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)--the new passport rules--both initiatives which, if not implemented carefully, will
undermine the foundation of NAFTA, the backbone of our economic integration, as well as our 140 years of shared friendship and family
connections.¶ The air rule for WHTI will be implemented tomorrow. I expect this will go smoothly since passport usage is around 95 per
cent and the U.S. intends to demonstrate flexibility in the implementation. ¶ And while land and sea implementation is still 11 or
potentially more months away, we are still encouraging the U.S. to take all of the necessary time required to get this right. We cannot
rush into this and have a "cold turkey" implementation without appropriate flexibility and phasing-in. But we are encouraged by recent
indications that the Administration and Congress may be more flexible in the implementation of WHTI related to land crossings. ¶ Let me
conclude.¶ I've said on a number of occasions the paradox of the Canada-U.S. relationship is that the steadier it is, the more attention is
given to any difference that may arise between us. ¶ Yes, we've had disputes. I know when things are bumpy, having lived through the
softwood lumber issue. But we solved it.¶ And yes, we have a problem in the defence co-operation realm. And we're working to solve it.¶
My point to you is that, if you overlook those areas where things are smooth, you miss the fundamental nature of our relationship. You
are looking only at the occasional blemish on the skin, not grasping the basic sinews that connect our two countries--and that give us
important strengths and advantages.¶ You also risk overlooking how Canada's international agenda is supported and how national
interests are furthered by our common cause endeavour with the United States. And that, to me, would do not just a disservice to our
neighbours to the south, and our bilateral relationship, it would also impede reaching our national objectives as a country. ¶ So
whether it is Afghanistan, weapons of mass destruction, the Western Hemisphere, trade,
pandemics, energy and the environment or the defence of North America, there are many ways
where the national interest of the United States and Canada converge. This brings real meaning to a
recent observation of a senior member of the U.S. Administration, "We often speak of our two countries as being friends, neighbours and
allies. Canada is also a good and reliable partner."
Lifting the embargo is key to regaining international reputation
Holmes 10- Michael G. Holmes, MA The School of Continuing Studies, Georgetown
(“SEIZING THE MOMENT,” June 21, 2010, Georgetown,
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holm
esMichael.pdf?sequence=1-Accessed-7-2-13-RX]
From an image stand point repealing the sanctions and removing the embargo is symbolic. It shows
Cuba and the world that although the United States is pro democracy, it does not wish to
impose its values on other nations. The Cuba Democracy Act was an attempt to force democratic changes in
Cuba.10 By repealing the act the United States, illustrates that it respects the sovereignty of nations. Considering that this Act
did allow for the application of U.S. law in a foreign country11, repealing it not only sends the message about U.S. views on
sovereignty but also shows that the administration is taking steps to ensure that sovereignty is actually respected.
Repealing the Helms-Burton Law will certainly stimulate foreign investment in Cuba as
well. Many foreign countries were leery of investing in Cuba out of fear of being sued or losing property under the provisions
established by the Helms-Burton Act.12 This return of foreign investment will further secure Cuba's
place in the global marketplace. It also will help to silence skeptics who will question U.S. intentions. Since the
sanctions against Cuba were unilateral U.S. actions, an unsolicited change in course will undoubtedly spark speculation.
Allowing all countries to invest in Cuba again underscores the United States' position of
desiring for all countries to participate in the global market place. It is difficult to imagine
that the benefits of lifting the embargo will not be immediate and substantial in regards to
the United States reputation in the world. Looking at the long-term benefits of removing
the sanctions, the two benefits that stand out the most are trade and fuel.
Lifting the embargo improves democracy, relations, and US global reputation
Hanson, Batten, & Ealey 1/16 --- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten & Harrison Ealey,
Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.
Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public
Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst (“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its
Senseless Embargo Of Cuba”, January 16, 2013, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)
For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without
permission from their government. The move, part of a broader reform package being
phased in by Raul Castro, underscores the irrationality of America’s continuation of a fivedecade old embargo.¶ While the embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor
of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-in-my-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The official
position is outdated, hypocritical, and counterproductive.¶ The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a
Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly
installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act – aims at producing free
markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and international legal penalties. ¶ Since
Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the government has
undertaken more than 300
economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and restrictions have been lifted on
property use, travel, farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is still a
place of oppression and gross human rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person
nation is moving in the right direction.¶ Despite this progress, the U.S. spends massive
amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods out of the United States. At least 10 different
agencies are responsible for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the
U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year.¶ At
the Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further
customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control
inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade
bans. Government
resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions,
such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and
rum.¶ At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of
friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every
year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for
maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba
despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims. ¶ Moreover, since
Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State
Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American
multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges. ¶ Yet, estimates
of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions
on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo.
These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the
unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.¶ What’s
worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to
collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance,
in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater
communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the
embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to
countries who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary
were all offered normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US
resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s
second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history
of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit
to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be
rolled back?¶ The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people,
who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress
being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism. ¶ A perpetual
embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little sense, especially when America’s
allies are
openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba
from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go.
Lifting the embargo increases our sphere of influence
Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade
Policy Studies (“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, October
12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-usembargo-against-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens.
Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that 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 farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.¶
Second, restrictions
on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances
would fuel the private sector, encourage Cuba’s modest economic reforms, and promote
independence from the government.¶ Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their
products to Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international
trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba
through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit.¶ Finally, the
Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the
embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact, undermined American
influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.¶ Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory
for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-
half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best way to
encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to
criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while
allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below.¶ We should
apply the president’s sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for
change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people
bearing dollars and new ideas.¶ How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before
it changes a failed policy?
People don't want the embargo anymore
Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies
Institute (“KISS THE EMBARGO GOODBYE”, February 2009, SSI,
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4,
2013,MY)
Although many believe there is unity in thinking among all Cubans in the United ¶ States,
conversations with people from each of these groups demonstrate that this is not ¶ true.
Although the diminishing group of original exiles still tends to be extremely antiCastro, many of the others just want the
whole thing to end so that they can either go ¶ home, or get this all behind them. Others just
want to be able to help their families at ¶ home or be free to travel back and forth at will.
The offspring of the original exiles (the ¶ oldest of whom are now in their early 50s) tend to be anti-Castro, however
many of ¶ them are not as enthusiastic as their parents about overthrowing the Revolution. Most ¶
desire that the Castro regime go away and Cuba be free, but they feel that time will ¶ make this happen, and they are not usually
dedicated to this cause like their parents. In ¶ private conversation, however, a trend appears. Very
United States ¶ actually want the embargo to continue.
few Cubans in the
Now is the time for engagement, diplomatic transition, Florida, and Kerry
Padgett 7/3 --- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent
covering Latin America and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America
for almost 25 years, graduate of Northwestern University (“Why This Summer Offers
Hope For Better U.S.-Cuba Relations”, July 3, 2013, WLRN, http://wlrn.org/post/whysummer-offers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
And yet, despite all that recent cold-war commotion, could this finally be the summer of love
on the Florida Straits? Last month the Obama Administration and the Castro dictatorship
started talks on re-establishing direct mail service; this month they’ll discuss immigration
guidelines. Diplomats on both sides report a more cooperative groove.¶ New Diplomacy¶ So what
happened that’s suddenly making it possible for the two governments to start some
substantive diplomatic outreach for the first time in years?¶ First, Castro finished crunching the
numbers on Cuba’s threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani Sánchez’s dissident blog
posts. To wit, the island’s finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oil charity from socialist Venezuela. He’s
adopted limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has to loosen
the repressive screws a turn or two.¶ That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better
opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business leader in Miami and
chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, “The timing is right” for some U.S.-Cuban rapprochement.¶ “Cuba
is clearly
in a transitionary mode,” says Saladrigas. “They need to change to reinsert themselves in
the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with other nations.Ӧ
Changing Attitudes¶ Second, although the White House is still intimidated by the Cuban exile lobby, it’s had its own numbers to ponder --
namely, poll results from South Florida’s Cuban-American community.¶ Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that.¶
Over the past five years, surveys have consistently shown that Cuban-Americans, especially
the more moderate younger generation and more recently arrived Cubans, favor
engagement with Cuba as a way of promoting democratization there. Some polls even
indicate that a majority want to ditch the failed 51-year-old U.S. trade embargo against
Cuba.¶ As a result, Obama -- who according to one exit poll won 48% of Florida’s Cuban vote in last year’s presidential election, which
would be a record for a Democratic candidate -- feels more elbow room for diálogo with the Castro regime. The Administration even
recently let González return to Cuba.¶ “The Cuban-American community in Miami is definitely changing,”
says Cuban-American Elena Freyre, president of the Foundation for Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in Miami. “It’s reached kind of a
critical mass at this point, and I think people are ready to try something different.” ¶ Freyre notes that Obama’s appointment this year of
former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the new U.S. secretary of state is also having an impact. ¶ “Mr.
Kerry has always
felt [the U.S.’s] position with Cuba made no sense,” she says. “He’s been very vocal about
thinking that if we engage Cuba we will get a lot further.” Kerry, for example, believes the U.S. should lift its
ban on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba.
Lifting Embargo key to Regional Relations
Sheridan ’09 , Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post Reporter (“U.S. Urged to Relax Cuba Policy to Boost Regional Relations”, the Washington Post, May 29, 2009,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-29/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)
The U.S. government is fighting an effort to allow Cuba to return to the Organization of American States after a 47-year suspension. But the resistance is putting it at odds with much of
Latin America as the Obama administration is trying to improve relations in the hemisphere.
¶ Eliminating the Cold War-era ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS, the main forum for political cooperation in the
hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America. The wrangling over Cuba threatens to dominate a
meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras.¶ ¶ "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba its
litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, she
said, Latin countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to Latin America."¶ ¶ President Obama has taken steps toward improving
ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and offering to restart immigration talks suspended in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the
longtime economic embargo until Havana makes democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail congressional action.¶ ¶
Obama is facing pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and from key U.S.
lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel
restrictions and ease the embargo.¶ ¶ Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the U.S. gestures.¶ ¶ Latin American leaders
say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in the region have established
relations with communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962
suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has suggested that OAS members could
postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic reforms.¶ ¶ Cuban exile organizations and some U.S. lawmakers are strongly opposed to readmitting the island.¶ ¶ "If we
invite Cuba back in, in spite of their violations, what message are we sending to the rest of the hemisphere -- that it's okay to move backwards away from democracy and human rights,
that there will be no repercussions for such actions?" Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban American, demanded in a speech. He threatened to cut off U.S. funding for the OAS -about 60 percent of its budget -- if the measure passed.¶ ¶ Clinton said last week that Cuba should be readmitted only if it abided by the OAS's Democratic Charter, a set of principles
adopted in 2001 that commits countries to hold elections and to respect human rights and press freedoms.¶ ¶ Most Latin American countries broke relations with Cuba after its 1959
revolution. Nearly all have restored diplomatic ties, and the United States will soon be the only holdout in the hemisphere.¶ ¶ The Cuba ban could be lifted by a two-thirds vote of the
OAS foreign ministers on Tuesday. However, the organization generally works by consensus, and several countries have indicated they do not want a showdown with the United
States.¶ ¶ Diplomats have been trying in recent days to hammer out a compromise. U.S. diplomats introduced a resolution that would instruct the OAS to open a dialogue with Cuba
about its "eventual reintegration," consistent with the principles of "democracy and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."¶ ¶ A diplomat said last night that the
United States appears to be softening its opposition to lifting the ban as long as Cuba's full reinstatement is contingent on moving toward democracy. He spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.¶ ¶ Venezuela, an ally of Cuba, has indicated it will not support any resolution that includes such conditions. "This is 'Jurassic Park,' "
fumed Venezuelan Ambassador Roy Chaderton. "We're still in the Cold War."¶ ¶ Some Latin American diplomats worry that the Cuba imbroglio (misunderstanding) could further
marginalize the OAS. The organization is respected for monitoring elections, and it has tried to broker disputes in the hemisphere. But critics lambaste it as largely a debating society.¶
¶ Venezuela has threatened to quit the organization and form an alternative regional group. It has set up a leftist trade alliance known as ALBA with several poor countries in Latin
America. Cuba has derided the OAS as a U.S.-dominated tool of the United States.¶ ¶ Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, said the Cuba
resolution has trapped the Obama administration between two of its priorities: democracy promotion and better relations with its neighbors. In 2001, the U.S. government supported
the Democratic Charter, a milestone in a region once known for dictatorships. But Obama told hemispheric leaders in Trinidad and Tobago last month that he wanted to form closer
There's really two different values at play here:
multilateralism versus democracy. You can't have multilateralism and then let one country,
i.e. the U.S., make the decision for a multilateral organization," Hakim said.
partnerships and not have the United States dictate policy.¶ ¶ "
Cuba-Iran ties
Iran is a growing security threat- plan key
Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(“ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA”,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW)
Cuba’s economy has not only survived the end of Soviet-era subsidies but has ¶ thrived in the era of globalization. This thesis
documents the adjustments the Cuban ¶ government has made to the economy and the increase in foreign
direct investment (FDI) ¶ that has occurred as a result. The thesis also shows how China, Venezuela and Iran ¶
continue to invest more money in the island and subsequently threaten to wield more ¶ influence
over Cuba . The U.S. has the opportunity to mitigate the threats posed by ¶ Venezuela and Iran vis-à-vis Cuba. However,
the policy espoused by current policy ¶ makers is logically flawed. The Helms-Burton Act contains
unrealistic benchmarks for ¶ ending the embargo that provide little incentive for Cuban leaders to liberalize. Neither
¶ presidential candidate advocates a change in this legislation. In contrast, this thesis ¶ argues that the normalization
of relations with Cuba can diminish the influence Iran and ¶ Venezuela have on Cuba and keep potential threats
from coming ninety miles off the ¶ coast of the U.S. The next president should call for Congress to repeal the
Helms-Burton ¶ Act so that executive discretion can be exercised with respect to Cuban foreign policy.
Iran influence threatens US security
Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(“ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA”,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW)
Mahmoud president Ahmadinejad. Like Chavez, he is best
inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric . And like Chavez, sometimes his
If Chavez has a kindred political kindred spirit, it would be Iranian
known on the world stage for his
penchant for ¶ outrageous statements makes it hard to take him seriously (i.e., Does he really believe the ¶ Holocaust did not happen?). Although,
conversely, it can be argued that those
very same outrageous statements are all the more reason to take him
seriously. Both presidents ¶ preside over petro-rich countries and both presidents have made no attempts to hide
their disdain for U.S. “imperialism.” And like those of Venezuela, Iran’s policies by themselves pose a
security threat to the U.S. What causes Ahmadinejad’s Iran to be perceived as t he number one
threat to world stability in the Gallup poll and what would ¶ cause President Bush to say that he is even more “evil” than Fidel Castro
or Gaddafi is the combination of his inflammatory anti-U.S./anti-Israel rhetoric and his claim that Iran ¶ is justified in its pursuit of
nuclear power . But what gets less press is the fact that Iran, ¶ like Venezuela, has begun to invest heavily in Cuba. And
like Venezuela, Iran may pose much more of a threat to the U.S. with an alliance with Cuba. Without
Cuba, Iran can only pose a threat to the U.S. in the Middle East; however, with Cuba and Venezuela,
Iran can bring its threat ninety miles off the shore of the U.S. The April 7, 2007, State Department Western
Hemisphere overview cites ¶ concerns about Hugo Chavez’s “deepened Venezuelan relationships with Iran and ¶ Cuba.”95 Though the State
Department’s report is unclassified and certainly is not a ¶ comprehensive intelligence report on the extent of the relationship between Venezuela,
¶ Cuba and Iran, it is decidedly vague about exactly what the “deepened” relationship ¶ consists of and why the U.S. should be concerned. Yet
despite the ambiguous State ¶ Department threat assessment linking Venezuela and Cuba to Iran, there
is plenty of circumstantial
evidence that links the three nations in what can amount to be a potentially volatile triangular
threat to U.S. interests. Though there have certainly been several recent links tying Iran to Venezuela and ¶ Cuba, a red flag was
definitely raised at the thirty-five nation International Atomic ¶ Energy Agency (IAEA) vote to refer Iran’s case for nuclear energy to the United
Nations ¶ Security Council in February 2006.
Plan key to diminishing Iranian influence in the region
Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(“ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA”,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW)
Cuba’s economy has not only survived the end of Soviet-era subsidies but has ¶ thrived in the era of globalization. This thesis documents the
adjustments the
Cuban government has made to the economy and the increase in foreign direct
investment (FDI) ¶ that has occurred as a result. The prospect of the U.S.’s Cuban trade embargo actually
accomplishing its goal seems to diminish more and more with the every dollar of FDI invested in
Cuba. The thesis also shows how China, Venezuela and Iran continue to invest more money in the island and
subsequently threaten to wield more influence over Cuba . The U.S. has the opportunity to mitigate the
threats posed by Venezuela and Iran ¶ vis-à-vis Cuba. However, the policy espoused by current policy makers is logically ¶ flawed. The
Helms-Burton Act contains unrealistic benchmarks that provide little ¶ incentive for Cuban
leaders to liberalize. Senator McCain espouses a position little ¶ different from President Bush’s hard-line implementation of HelmsBurton, an approach ¶ that has failed to produce change. Senator Obama advocates liberalization within the ¶ context of Helms-Burton, an
approach already tried by President Clinton without ¶ producing significant change. In contrast, this thesis argues that the
normalization
of relations with Cuba can diminish the influence Iran and Venezuela have on Cuba and ¶ keep
potential threats from coming ninety miles off the coast of the U.S. The next ¶ president should call
for Congress to repeal the Helms-Burton Act so that executive discretion can be exercised with
respect to Cuban foreign policy.
Embargo allows for strong Cuba-Iran ties
Curtain 08 Joseph W. Curtain - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy,(“ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE
U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH CUBA”,dtic.mil,6/2008,http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a483591.pdf,6/28/13,JW)
Within a little more than 15 years, Cuba has unquestionably transitioned from a ¶ country that was economically dependent on the Soviet Union
to one with a much healthier international trade balance. Cuba now trades more than $2 billion of merchandise and goods with the E.U., more
than $730 million with China, and more than $690 million with Canada. Its levels of FDI have increased exponentially—from $2 ¶ million in
1990 to over $480 million in 2005 and over $2.2 billion overall from 1993-¶ 2004. Cuba’s tourism industry is booming as well—increasing from
500,000 ¶ international tourists in 1993 to over 2.3 million tourists in 2005—an astonishing 360% ¶ increase.132 Finally, the commitment
Canadian, Chinese and Venezuelan companies have made to invest billions of dollars into nickel and oil exploitation are additional signs of
Cuba’s increased trend toward global economic interconnectedness. This global ¶ economic expansion has helped Cuba lift itself from a post
Soviet Union economic ¶ recession in the 1990s to an average of slightly over 5% economic growth from 2000 to ¶ 2004133 which increased to
9% in 2005, 10% in 2006 and 8% in 2007.134 Thus this ¶ economic expansion leads to the question Andrew Zimbalist posed back in 1993: “If ¶
Castro has been able to maintain his grip on power during the crises of the last four years, ¶ then there is little prospect for his political demise as
the economy begins to stabilize and ¶ slowly improve.”135 Zimbalist’s point is more salient now than it was then. If Fidel ¶ Castro’s
regime was going to crumble because of the economic effects of the U.S. embargo, it should
have deteriorated in the wake of the Soviet Union’s dissolution and ¶ the absence of billions of dollars of annual
aid. But the economy did just the opposite. ¶ Instead, it rebounded in the late 1990s and has shown consistent
growth in the 2000s—so ¶ much so that Cuba witnessed the recent peaceful transition of power from Fidel to his brother Raul. A
current spin on Zimbalist’s point would be: If Raul Castro’s regime can ¶ continue to sustain economic growth, then there is little prospect for the
demise of the ¶ communist regime in the post-Fidel era. ¶ The recent
Cuban economic expansion is perhaps the
clearest signal that the U.S.–Cuban policy needs an overhaul. It is not working. It was a policy designed in
the Cold ¶ War that no longer makes sense in the globalized world of economic interconnectedness. ¶ Some critics might argue that maintaining
the current policy cannot hurt the U.S., and at ¶ the very least, it is sending the “right” signal to Cuba’s communist leaders. The question ¶ they
would ask is, “What is the worst that could happen by staying the course?” The
problem with the status quo logic is it
overlooks the fact that the embargo has contributed to the growing influence of Venezuela, Iran and
China in Cuba through their increasing investments in the Cuban economy.
Cuba Venezuela Ties
Venezuela trade with Cuba mainly based on oil
Hanson et. al. 1/31/13 - Stephanie Hanson, associate director and coordinating editor at CFR.org, the website
of the Council on Foreign Relations. She manages the editorial production of the website and covers economic and
political development in Africa and Latin America. Her work has been published in the Los Angeles Times,
Bookforum, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsday, and on the websites of the New York Times, Newsweek, and the
Washington Post. (“U.S.-Cuba Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, 1/31/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cubarelations/p11113#p3, accessed: 6/28/13, amf.)
In October 2000, Chávez
and Fidel Castro signed the Integral Cooperation Accord, an agreement
that specified an exchange of Venezuelan oil for Cuban goods and services. The accord was
reaffirmed and extended for another ten-year period in 2010. Venezuela now sells Cuba some
90,000 barrels of crude oil daily at preferential prices, and Cuba sends tens of thousands of medical
professionals to work with Venezuelan communities. Florida International University's Martin calls the relationship
"very intimate," and says it is getting "stronger and stronger every year."
Strong relationship between Cuba and Venezuela – ideology and trade
Global Times 6/8/13 – Globaltimes.cn. (“Venezuela-Cuba ties to stay strong: official,” The Global Times,
6/8/13, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/787836.shtml#.UdXIwT6sa9c, accessed: 7/4/13, amf)
Friendship between Venezuela and Cuba will continue to stay strong, Venezuelan National
Assembly President Diosdado Cabello said Friday.
The solidarity, friendship and camaraderie between the two nations, promoted by their respective
former leaders, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, will continue to thrive for many years, said Cabello, who
began an official three-day visit to Cuba on Friday.
Cabello, after meeting his Cuban counterpart, Esteban Lazo,
thanked the Cuban people and their leaders
for giving medical treatment to Chavez.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Chavez's successor, is committed to continuing the policies
spearheaded by Chavez, said Cabello.
Lazo reiterated Cuba's respect for Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, the term Chavez gave to the
socialist reforms he launched to address the country's inequity.
The Cuban legislator also highlighted the extraordinary effort Chavez made to promote unity in
Latin America and the Caribbean, saying Chavez served as an inspiration for other revolutionaries in the
region.
With Chavez in power, the
two countries had maintained good relations. Venezuela supplies Cuba
with 100,000 barrels of oil per day, and in exchange, Cuba provides Venezuela with more than
45,000 professionals, mainly in medical and healthcare fields.
Cuba and Venezuela key to ALBA bloc – leaders of the anti-US alliance
Egan 7/4/13 – Louise Egan, Senior Correspondent to Reuters, covering cover economics, fiscal policy, central
banking, and G20. (“Latin America furious over Bolivia incident in Snowden saga,” Reuters, 7/4/13,
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/usa-security-latinamerica-idINDEE9620GQ20130703, accessed: 7/4/13,
amf)
ANTI-U.S. RHETORIC
Bolivian officials were quick on Tuesday to accuse the United States of strong-arming the Europeans
into denying access to their air space in an "act of intimidation" against Morales for suggesting while
attending an energy conference in Moscow that he would consider granting asylum to Snowden if requested.
The restrictions were later lifted and Morales was on his way home after a stopover in the Canary Islands.
Snowden is believed to be still in the transit area of a Moscow airport, where he has been trying since June 23 to
find a country that will offer him refuge from prosecution in the United States on espionage charges.
The Bolivian government said it had filed a formal complaint with the United Nations and was
studying other legal avenues to prove its rights had been violated under international law.
Legal experts say Bolivia could take its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if
Austrian officials had boarded Morales' plane in Vienna without his consent, presumably to search for Snowden.
Bolivian Defense Minister Ruben Saavedra said authorities did not board the plane, contradicting an Austrian
official who said the aircraft had been boarded and checked.
Some Bolivians took to the streets in protest, burning the French and European Union flags outside the
French Embassy in the capital of La Paz.
Bolivia is part of the ALBA alliance of Latin American socialist countries that has for years
delighted in confronting Washington.
Morales has yet to restore full diplomatic relations with the United States after expelling the U.S.
ambassador in 2008.
But the regional leftist
bloc's two leading members - Cuba and Venezuela - are in a cautious
rapprochement with the United States that likely would be dashed if they gave sanctuary to Snowden.
U.S. President Barack Obama has warned that giving Snowden asylum would carry serious costs.
Embargo is a block in Venezuelan relations – plan solves
Suggett 9 – James Sugget, Staff Writer for Venezuela Analysis, (“Obama Should End Cuba
Embargo and Learn About Latin America, Says Venezuela’s Chávez”, Article for Venezuela
Analysis, 3/23/2009, http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4315, Accessed 6/28/13, AW)
President Obama’s willingness to dialogue with Venezuela and Cuba and his pledge “to find
cooperation and mutual interest” mark a departure from the harsh cold war rhetoric of the
administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush. ¶ However, the Venezuelan
government views Obama’s scolding of Venezuela for lacking “good international
behavior,” his refusal so far to end the embargo against Cuba, and the U.S. State
Department’s recent report critiquing human rights worldwide as obstacles to improving
U.S.-Latin American relations.
Lifting restrictions on Cuba develops Venezuelan influence
Pascual et. al. 09 – Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution ( Gustavo Arnavat
Attorney
at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the
Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero
professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S.
policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise
institute dr. damián J. fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior
Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban
American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J.
(pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs
American University dr. Marifeli pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. piñón
Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor
Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés rozental
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas CoChairman Cuba Study Group, “Cuba: A New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement” Brookings, April 2009,
Accessed 6/26/13, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)
The first two initiatives simply encourage a broadening of U.S. government public and private participation in
activities that assist the growth of ¶ Cuban civil society and should be carried out regardless of Cuba’s conduct. The
U.S. government ¶ should expand the assistance envisioned in the ¶ first basket by encouraging other
governments, ¶ multilateral institutions, organizations, and individuals to support educational
exchanges as ¶ well as the improvement of human rights and the ¶ growth of civil society. in addition, in order to
enhance access to knowledge, the U.S. government ¶ should allow private individuals, groups, and the ¶ Cuban
government access to normal commercial ¶ credit for the sale of communications equipment ¶ and connections to
satellite and broadband networks.¶ licensing U.S. companies to provide services for ¶ the development
of Cuban offshore oil and gas ¶ would provide benefits to the United States and ¶ Cuba. (At this
point it should be noted that the ¶ Secretary of Treasury has always had and continues to have the authority—as
embodied in OFAC ¶ regulations—to license any transaction found to ¶ be in the U.S. national interest. This power
has ¶ been used over the past fifteen years by various ¶ republican and Democratic administrations to ¶ license a
variety of commercial transactions between the United States and Cuba). The following ¶ are some of the reasons we
might wish to become ¶ engaged in developing Cuba’s offshore oil and ¶ gas. First, if U.S. and other reputable
companies ¶ are involved in Cuba’s offshore oil development ¶ it would reduce Cuba’s
dependence on Venezuela ¶ for two-thirds of its oil imports. Second, it is preferable that U.S. oil
companies with high standards ¶ of transparency develop these resources rather ¶ than, for example,
russia’s notoriously corrupt ¶ oligarchy. Third, U.S. influence in Cuba is likely ¶ to increase if U.S. companies
have an economic ¶ relationship on the ground. Fourth, U.S. companies have the technology and expertise
to develop ¶ Cuba’s offshore oil and gas.
The plan is uniquely key to democracy – reduces Cuban energy reliance on autocratic
countries
Pinon 09 – Jorge Pinon, research fellow at University of Miami’s Center for Hemispheric
Affairs, advisor at Brookings Institution’s US Policy towards Cuba in Transition task force
(“Oil Work can be Part of US-Cuban Rapprochement”, Oil and Gas Journal, 5/4/09, Lexis
Nexis, AM)
of Cuba's petroleum demand currently relies on imports, and Venezuela is the single
source of these imports under heavily subsidized payment terms.
This petroleum dependency, valued at over $3 billion in 2008, could be used by Venezuela as a
tool to influence a future Cuban government in maintaining a politically antagonistic and
belligerent position toward the US.
Cuba has learned from experiences and is very much aware of the political and economic risks
and consequences of depending on a single source for imported oil. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the 2003 Venezuelan oil strike taught Cuba very expensive lessons.
President Raul Castro understands the risks; his recent visits to major oil exporters such as
Brazil, Russia, Angola, and Algeria underscore his concerns. A relationship with Brazil
would provide a balance to Cuba's current dependency, while others could bring with it
corrupt and unsavory business practices.
Only when Cuba diversifies suppliers and develops its offshore resources, estimated by the US
Geological Survey to be at 5.5 billion bbl of oil and 9.8 tcf of natural gas undiscovered
reserves, will it have the economic independence needed to consider a political and economic
evolution.
US restrictions
Two thirds
Although Cuban authorities have invited US oil companies to participate in developing their
offshore oil and natural gas resources, US law does not allow it.
American oil and oil equipment and service companies have the capital, technology, and
operational know-how to explore, produce, and refine in a safe and responsible manner Cuba's
potential oil and natural gas reserves. Yet they remain on the sidelines because of the almost
5-decade-old unilateral political and economic embargo.
The president can end this impasse by licensing American companies to participate in
developing Cuba's offshore oil and gas. Embargo regulations specifically give the secretary of
the treasury the authority to license prohibited activities. The Helms-Burton law codified
the embargo regulations as well as the secretary's power, embedded in the codified
regulations, to rescind, modify, or amend them. The proof of this is that several years after
the Helms-Burton law was enacted, former President Bill Clinton expanded travel and
money transfers to the Cuban people and civil society.
Cuba's future
By seizing the initiative on Cuba policy, the president could claim an early and relatively easy
policy success. Critically, he would position the US to play a role in Cuba's future, thereby
giving Cubans a better chance for a stable and democratic future.
A future Cuban government influenced by its energy benefactors would most likely result in a
continuation of the current political and economic model. If Cuba's new leaders are unable to
fill the power vacuum left by the departure of the old cadre, they could become pawns of
illicit business activities and drug cartels , and the US could face a mass illegal immigration by
hundreds of thousands of Cubans.
If US companies were allowed to contribute in developing Cuba's hydrocarbon reserves, as well
as renewable energy such as solar, wind, and sugarcane ethanol, the change would reduce
the influence of autocratic and corrupt governments. Most importantly, it would provide the US
and other democratic countries with a better chance of working with Cuba's future leaders to
carry out reforms that would lead to a more open and representative society .
Fifty-two years ago this October, following the nationalization of the property of U.S.
citizens and corporations in Cuba, Washington enacted economic sanctions against the
island nation, imposing El bloqueo, the longest embargo in modern history. This policy has
not only been grossly ineffective, but has exacted a significant economic toll on both
countries by restricting the movement of people, capital, and goods to and from Cuba.
Over the years, these sanctions have evolved, as have the geo-political dynamics that
formed the shaky reasoning behind the policy. Cuba's largest former benefactor, the
USSR, has long since collapsed and its aging revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro, no longer
holds formal power after handing leadership over to his brother in April 2011. Considering
these seismic political changes, the embargo should be lifted to allow the unrestricted flow
of trade that would bring an important level of economic growth to both the U.S. and
Cuba.
US-Latin American relations
Plan sends a signal to Latin America that the US is willing to be reasonable- boosts US
credibility in the region and salvages regional cooperation
WHITE 3/7 -Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States
ambassador to Paraguay from 1977 to 1979 and to El Salvador from 1980 to 1981, (“After Chávez, a Chance
to Rethink Relations With Cuba “ NYTimes March 7, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&partner=rss&emc=rss-Accessed-7-9-13-RX)
Yet for a half-century, our
policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between
intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this
week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the
United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to
restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic
Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up
the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The
embargo no longer serves any useful
purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from
Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.¶ An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all
of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic
forces seeking social change throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service
officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to
the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired
revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and
Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted
democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress,
a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from
Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus
on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of
inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after
Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for
Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American
democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate
political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly
were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all
standards save that of anti-Communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that
supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the
secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of
four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba
was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the
1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained
them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department
asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had
refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a
policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of
the national interest.Ӧ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have
undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of
American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by
Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and
Canada — as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most
positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.”¶ Mr. Chávez
was
masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick
with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive
change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap
commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that
it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President
Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of
Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our
Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America , as it had been since the very
early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and
economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded
primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero. ¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel
restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile
community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of
Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The
third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but
his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) ¶ Are
there any other examples in the history of
diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting
in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr.
Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The
president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel
Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The
message should be
simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶
Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a
multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient
measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.¶
If , however,
our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United
States versus Latin America . While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like
Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the
vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in
matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
Lifting the embargo solves Latin American relations
Creamer 11—Robert Creamer, Robert Creamer has been a political organizer and strategist
for four decades. He and his firm, Democracy Partners, work with many of the country’s
most significant issue campaigns. He was one of the major architects and organizers of the
successful campaign to defeat the privatization of Social Security. He has been a consultant
to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, pass Wall Street reform,
change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform. He has
also worked on hundreds of electoral campaigns at the local, state and national level.
Creamer is married to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois. Arianna Huffington
calls his book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, a master’s class in electoral
politics. (“Changes in U.S. Cuba Policy Good First step – But It’s Time to Normalize Relations,”
1/18/11, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/changes-in-uscuba-policy_b_810161.html-Accessed-6-27-13-RX)
4). Our failure
to normalize relations with Cuba undermines American interests throughout
the world -- and particular in Latin America.
U.S. policy towards Cuba has been a major sore point with other countries in Latin America, who view it as a vestige of Yankee
paternalism toward the entire region. And
it is used by those who want to harm America as another
piece of anti-American propaganda.
Far from isolating Cuba, we have isolated ourselves. Virtually all of America's major allies have normal economic and political
relationships with Cuba. Last year, the United Nations General Assembly voted for the seventeenth time -- in seventeen years -- to
condemn our economic embargo of Cuba -- this time by a vote of 185 to 3.
Lifting the Embargo key to US – LA relations
Hirst 13 Monica Hirst - Full-time Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Porfessor of MA Program of Universidad
Torcuato di Tella,(“Cuba-Latin America & Caribbean relations; challenges beyond
normalization”,wordpress.com,2013,http://blogbrasilnomundo.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cuba-latin-america-challenges-beyondnormalization.pdf,Accessed:7/4/13,JW)
For many decades, connections with Havana had inevitable implications for US-Latin
American relations, as closeness to Washington was defined by whether governments were friends or
foes to Cuba. While it is true that such rigidity no longer exists, narrow mind-sets have not been
completely discarded. From a Cuban perspective, closer relations with Latin America is
perceived as part of a more distant and critical view towards the US. For the US government, this
is essentially an intermestic matter with ¶ resilient ideological contents, to be addressed in the context of
bilaterally unsettled ¶ negotiations. For L atin A merican countries, the US blockade represents a
plaintive anachronism, and any step on Washington’s part to eliminate it would be read as a
positive sign towards the region . Europeans, on their side, have observed the recent Cuban-Latin
American ¶ rapprochement with a positive view and are about to take themselves a first step toward¶ opening
negotiations with this country. Relations between European countries and Cuba ¶ have followed a dual
pattern; while the European Union has resisted going ahead in a ¶ negotiation of collective accords with the
island, bilateral ties have been pursued by ¶ many EU members.16 Conditions imposed by the EU are focused
on expected changes ¶ from the Cuban regime regarding the protection of human rights, the rule of law, and ¶
adherence to the International Court of Justice. The seventeen bilateral accords in place ¶ cover investment,
trade and cooperation initiatives. Prospects have recently emerged to ¶ draft the framework to commence a
negotiation process with Brussels. ¶ In fact, Europe stands as Cuba’s second trade partner (after Venezuela),
benefitting¶ therefore from bilateral understandings and commercial preferences. The EU does not
support the US blockade in any way. Businesswise, European expectations are pending on
the “day after” of the suspension by the US blockade, particularly in areas as tourism,
services and infrastructure since European investments are affected by the limitations
imposed by US legislation. With the current economic crises faced at ¶ home, the importance of
expanding markets as well as FDI in Latin American and Caribbean countries has been
reinforced. Even more meaningful than potentially expanding the Cuban domestic market,
are expectations that this country could become a regional hub to serve neighboring
islands together along with the southeast of the United States (Feinberg, 2012:15).
Trade is the only link to Latin American Relations
Ben-Ami 13 - Shlomo Ben-Ami a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as the vice president of the Toledo
International Center for Peace, a former Israeli diplomat, politician and historian. (“Is the US Losing Latin America?”,The Guatemala
Times, 05 JUNE 2013, http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated-2/3681--is-the-us-
losing-latin-america-.html Accessed: 6/27/13, MC)
It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W.
Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give
the region little thought as well, at least in his first term.
Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt
sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on
Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more
to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than
supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has
been an utter failure.It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin
America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in
the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.
Similarly, in 2008, Russia’s then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on terror as an opportunity to create strategic
partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a Venezuelan-inspired bloc
opposed to US designs in the region. The energy giant Gazprom and the country’s military industries have spearheaded the Kremlin’s
effort to demonstrate Russia’s ability to influence America’s neighborhood – a direct response to perceived American meddling in
Russia’s own “near abroad,” particularly Georgia and Ukraine.
Yet it would be a mistake to regard Latin America’s broadening international relations as marking the end of US preeminence. Unlike in
the bygone era of superpowers and captive nations, American
influence can no longer be defined by the
ability to install and depose leaders from the US embassy. To believe otherwise is to ignore
how international politics has changed over the last quarter-century. A continent once afflicted by
military takeovers has slowly but surely implanted stable democracies. Responsible economic management,
poverty-reduction programs, structural reforms, and greater openness to foreign
investment have all helped to generate years of low-inflation growth. As a result, the region
was able to withstand the ravages of the global financial crisis.
The US not only encouraged these changes, but has benefited hugely from them. More than 40%
of US exports now go to Mexico and Central and South America, the US’s fastest-growing export destination. Mexico is America’s secondlargest foreign market (valued at $215 billion in 2012). US exports to Central America have risen by 94% over the past six years; imports
from the region have risen by 87%. And the US continues to be the largest foreign investor on the continent. American interests are
evidently well served by having democratic, stable, and increasingly prosperous neighbors.
The embargo isolates the U.S. from Latin America.
Homick 2009 [Ed Homick. Ed Homick is a writer for CNN. CNN. Analysis: United States-Cuba relations begin the long
thaw. April 8 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/cuba.travel/ Accessed: June 28, 2013. AK]
(CNN) -- "It's time to talk to Cuba." That frank assessment from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, has
resonated loud and clear from the island of Cuba -- 90 miles from the southernmost point of Florida -- to
the halls of Congress. For the first time in nearly 50 years, relations between the two nations, which have a history
steeped in tension, have seemed to ease a bit. That was apparent this week as a delegation from the Congressional Black
Caucus traveled to the communist country on a fact-finding mission, with plans to deliver a report to the White House.
Watch CNN's Ed Hornick discuss the story » "Our purpose was to see if there were preconditions on the Cuban side. We
heard that there were no preconditions," Lee said Wednesday. "And, in fact, we wanted to find out if they were interested.
We have to remember that every country in Latin America, 15 countries, have normal relations with
Cuba. ... We're the country which is isolated."
Watch Lee discuss her visit to Cuba » But even more
significant were the meetings the group had with Cuban President Raúl Castro and with his brother and predecessor, 82year-old Fidel Castro, a controversial political and social figure. President Obama has said he is in favor of changing the
relationship with Cuba. The $410 billion budget Obama signed in March makes it easier for
Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba and to send money to family members on the island. It
could also allow the sale of agricultural and pharmaceutical products to Cuba. Three provisions
attached to the omnibus spending bill loosened restrictions enacted by former President Bush after he came to office in
2001. Bill to allow travel to Cuba has a better shot Analysts see the lawmakers' trip and Obama's campaign rhetoric as a
way for the new administration to start thawing relations with Cuba before the Fifth Summit of the Americas. The summit
will bring together the U.S. president and 33 other leaders from the Western Hemisphere in mid-April in Trinidad and
Tobago. Watch more on the lawmakers' meeting » It's a point that Fidel Castro seemed to hint at. In a letter published
Tuesday in the online version of Granma, a state-run Cuban newspaper, Castro wrote that an unnamed caucus member
told him "he was sure that Obama would change Cuba policy but that Cuba should also help him." "I value the
gesture of this legislative group," Fidel Castro wrote. "The aura of [the Rev. Martin] Luther King is
accompanying them. Our press has given broad coverage of their visit. They are exceptional witnesses to the respect that
U.S. citizens visiting our homeland always receive." U.S. citizens are allowed to visit Cuba, an island shrouded in a virtual
blackout to the U.S. and other parts of the world, but must apply for special licenses to do so. Though it is illegal, some
citizens travel to a country like Mexico or Canada and then into Cuba. Not everyone is eager for change. CubanAmerican members of Congress, in particular, have voiced outrage over the easing of relations. Florida Republican Sen.
Mel Martinez, who was born in Cuba, doesn't want to see changes to the embargo. "Having tourists on Cuban beaches is
not going to achieve democratic change in Cuba," Martinez has said. New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat and
Cuban-American, said in a recent speech that the Cuban government is "pure and simple a brutal dictatorship. ... The
average Cuban lives on an income of less than a dollar a day." Fidel Castro led the 1959 revolution that overthrew Cuba's
Batista dictatorship. The United States broke diplomatic ties with the nation in 1961. The next year, the U.S. government
instituted a trade embargo. Both policies remain in effect. Interactive: A look at the Fidel Castro's life » The State
Department, per its Web site, officially recognizes the country as "a totalitarian police state which relies on repressive
methods to maintain control. These methods, including intense physical and electronic surveillance of Cubans, are also
extended to foreign travelers." Although Castro was credited with bringing social reforms to Cuba, he has been criticized
around the world for oppressing human rights and free speech. Lee said she hopes the meeting in Cuba this week will
help open diplomatic channels between the two nations. "It's time to change our direction in our foreign policy. The
president is doing a phenomenal job in the world, reshaping America's image and role in the world," she said. "So we want
to make sure that we have the proper information to make recommendations to the president, our secretary of state and
our speaker with regard to U.S. policy toward Cuba." Interactive: Learn more about Cuba » Though the current stance of
the U.S. government toward Cuba fits well with an older generation of Cuban-Americans who despise Castro, not all are of
that mind-set. Namely, members of a younger
generation see great benefits of opening trade and
direct tourism between the United States and Cuba. Jessica Rodriguez, who owns Cuba de Ayer
restaurant in Burtonsville, Maryland, is part of that younger generation looking to change the views of her community. "I
think it would be good to open up some of those doors. I have so many customers who say, 'Oh, I'd like to go to Cuba.' And
I say, 'Me too.' " "I think it would be great for the world to see Cuba for itself," she added. Some Cuban-Americans like
Tessie Aral, owner of a Miami, Florida, travel agency that specializes in trips to Cuba, see the financial benefits of lifting
the travel ban. "I think a lot of Americans are going to want to travel to Cuba because it's been the forbidden fruit for so
long," Aral said. "For our country to tell us which country we can travel to, I think that's just archaic." Others in Congress
see opening greater relations with Cuba as vital to the United States. A group of senators and other supporters unveiled
a bill March 31 to lift the 47-year-old travel ban to Cuba. "I think that we finally reached a new watermark here on this
issue," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the bill's sponsors. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, another
sponsor of the bill, issued a draft report in February that said it was time to reconsider the economic sanctions. Lugar is
the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Nonetheless, there is more political and
diplomatic work to be done before restrictions on travel and trade could be lifted. Though it's a first step, Lee sees it as a
crack in the proverbial ceiling. "We went to Cuba to listen to Cuban officials to make sure that we had the information
and the facts that were necessary to bring back and at least let our administration know what we believe is possible."
Embargo undercuts foreign policy and influence in Latin America
Frank 12 – Marc Frank, Freelance journalist in Havana working for Reuters, the Financial
Times and ABC News. Specializes in information technology and services. (“US-Cuba
relations make little progress”, Financial Times, September 25, 2012,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ca94f5e-070a-11e2-92ef00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Y71Yog00, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
When Barack Obama won the US presidency in 2008, many believed he would make significant progress in
Cuban relations, so resolving one of the last conflicts of the cold war.
But four years later, US-Cuba relations remain stuck in much the same time warp, and whether Mr
Obama or his Republican challenger Mitt Romney becomes the next US president, few expect a significant
breakthrough – although the region’s changing ideological landscape could prompt the
beginnings of a shift.
Mr. Obama lifted all restrictions on Cuban American visits soon after taking office, and in December 2010
reversed a Bush Administration ban that led to a surge in so-called people-to-people visits, which are for
educational purposes rather than tourism. But he has also stepped up financial sanctions under antiterrorism laws, and this year issued tough new travel guidelines.
“The US position on Cuba continues to undercut our strategic position in the region and a
breakthrough would greatly enhance Obama’s foreign policy legacy through solving a
problem far simpler than many other global issues,” said Julia Sweig, a senior fellow on Latin
America at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.
“There is no question that Obama’s first term disappointed many when it comes to Cuba, but I think it
premature to assume this status quo under a second term,” she added.
Embargo specifically blocks Latin America relations
White 3/7 - Robert E. White, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the
United States ambassador to Paraguay from 1977 to 1979 and to El Salvador from 1980 to
1981. (“After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba”, The New York Times, March
7, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-goodneighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical
stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change,
interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.
Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of
these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin
America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged
Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.
Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling
block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro
regime.
Lifting embargo key to improving Latin American relations
NY Daily News 09 - (“Latin leaders urge U.S. to lift Cuba embargo”, NY Daily News, 9/26/09,
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/latin-leaders-urge-u-s-lift-cuba-embargo-article-1.402175,
Accessed 7/4/13, AM)
Nevertheless, many other issues were also on the world leaders' agenda. Along with speeches opposing the
posting of U.S. military personnel in seven Colombian army bases and multiple calls for restoring
democratically elected Manuel Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras, several Latin American heads of
state demanded the lifting of the economic embargo the people of Cuba have been subjected to for
half a century.
Their position was not new. All had called on President Obama to end the draconian measure last
June at the Organization of American States' annual assembly in Honduras.
Here in New York, it was Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva who issued the first plea for
abolishing the blockade (as they call the embargo in Cuba), calling it an "obsolete measure."
Uruguay's president, Tabaré Vázquez, also expressed his country's desire for a new policy. "As
Americans" [that is, all people born on the continent], he said, "we feel the ethical duty and the
political responsibility of reiterating in this world forum that we will persevere in our effort for an
American integration without exclusions, exceptions or blockades like the one Cuba is suffering."
Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, pointed out that in order to change the world for the better,
first "we must change the UN and end the blockade to Cuba."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a friend of Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution, also asked that the
embargo be lifted, a demand he restated Thursday night during a one-hour CNN interview with Larry
King.
"As we asked him in June, Obama should break the embargo already," Chávez told King, referring to the OAS
meeting.
The opposition to the failed embargo policy goes beyond Latin America. In what could be a record, the
General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for 17 years in a row to urge the U.S. to lift the
anachronistic embargo.
The time is long overdue for Congress and President Obama to heed the world's opinion and toss
the failed embargo into the ash heap of history. That would really be in sync with his
administration's policy of engagement with and mutual respect for Cuba, Latin America
and the world.
US-Cuba Relations
US-Cuba relations low now—refusal to release Gross and political conflict
Franks 10—Jeff Franks, five-year writer for Reuters on Cuban relations and politics (“U.S.-Cuba relations under
Obama fall to lowest point”, Reuters, 3/31/10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/31/us-cuba-usaidUSTRE62U34W20100331, Accessed 7/10/13, jtc)
(Reuters) - U.S.-Cuban relations have fallen to their lowest point since Barack Obama became U.S.
president and are in danger of getting worse unless the two countries take serious steps toward
ending five decades of hostility, according to Cuba experts.¶ After a brief warming last year, both countries
appear to be falling back into old, antagonistic ways, obscuring whatever progress that has been
made and hindering further advances, the experts said this week.¶ "The past year has proven that when it comes
to U.S.-Cuba relations, old habits die hard," said Dan Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in
Washington.¶ Obama, who took office in January 2009 and has said he wanted to recast U.S.-Cuban relations, lifted
restrictions on travel by Cuban Americans to the communist-ruled island and initiated talks on migration issues and
direct postal service.¶ Since then, Cuban Americans have flooded the island and the two longtime ideological foes
have held their first high-level discussions in years. But recent developments have been mostly negative. ¶ Cuba
jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross in December on suspicion of spying and continues to hold him
without charges.¶ Cuba's government has been condemned internationally for its treatment of opponents, including
imprisoned dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died in February from a hunger strike, and the "Ladies in
White," wives and mothers of imprisoned dissidents, were shouted down by government supporters during protest
marches this month.¶ Obama rebuked the Cuban government in a strongly worded statement on March 24,
saying Cuba continues "to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist."¶
U.S. officials think they have done enough to elicit a more positive response from Cuba, while Cuba complains that
Obama has done too little.¶ 'GENUINE GOODWILL'¶ Miami attorney Timothy Ashby, a former U.S. Commerce
Department official in charge of trade with Cuba, said neither has done what is necessary to overcome 50 years of
bitterness.¶ "Neither government is willing to take a significant step that would serve as a demonstration of genuine
goodwill," he said.¶ Both nations have taken actions that have not helped the fragile improvement
begun by Obama.¶ Obama angered the Cuban government in November when he responded to questions via email
from dissident Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who Cuban leaders view as at least complicit with their enemies in
Europe and the United States.¶ In February, Assistant Secretary of State Craig Kelly provoked a bitter Cuban
reaction when he met with dissidents following migration talks with Cuban officials in Havana. ¶ Cuba, in turn, has
soured the political climate by harshly criticizing Obama for his lack of action while taking little of its own. ¶ Its
detention of Gross, which U.S. officials say Cuba has refused to discuss, has called into question its desire for
change even among those who want better relations. ¶ In a letter last week to Cuba's top diplomat in Washington, 41
members of the U.S. House of Representatives said the detention of Gross "has caused many to
doubt your government's expressed desire to improve relations with the United States."¶ "We
cannot assist in that regard while Mr. Gross is detained in a Cuban prison," said the legislators, who included
sponsors of pending legislation to end a U.S. ban on travel to Cuba.¶
Now is uniquely key to boost US-Cuba relations
Padgett 7/3- Tim Padgett is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering
Latin America and the Caribbean from Miami. He has covered Latin America for almost 25
years, for Newsweek as its Mexico City bureau chief from 1990 to 1996, and for Time as its
Latin America bureau chief, first in Mexico from 1996 to 1999 and then in Miami, where he
also covered Florida and the U.S. Southeast, from 1999 to 2013. (“Why This Summer Offers
Hope For Better US-Cuba Relations,” WLRN, 7/3/13 http://wlrn.org/post/why-summeroffers-hope-better-us-cuba-relations-Accessed-7-4-13-RX)
First, Castro finished crunching the numbers on Cuba’s threadbare economy, and the results scared him more than one of Yoani
Sánchez’s dissident blog posts. To wit, the island’s finances are held up by little more than European tourists and oil charity from socialist
Venezuela. He’s adopted
limited capitalist reforms as the remedy, and to make them work he has
to loosen the repressive screws a turn or two.
That finally includes letting Cubans travel freely abroad, which gives them better
opportunities to bring back investment capital. As a result, says Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban-American business
leader in Miami and chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, “The timing is right” for some U.S.-Cuban
rapprochement.
“Cuba is clearly in a transitionary mode,” says Saladrigas. “They need to change to reinsert
themselves in the global order, they need to become more normal in their relations with
other nations.”
Current political climate in Latin America gives Obama the chance to repair ties with
Cuba and Latin America
Tisdall 3/5- Simon Tisdall, Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign
affairs columnist. He was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also
served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based in Washington DC. (“Death of Hugo
Chavez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America,” Guardian Newspaper, 3/5/13,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dead-us-latin-americaAccessed-6-27-13-RX)
Hugo Chávez's departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela, but
also with other Latin American states whose relations with Washington were adversely affected by Chávez's politics of polarisation and
the Bush administration's viscerally unintelligent reaction.
In particular, the change of leadership in Caracas could unlock the deadlock over Cuba, if the White House can
summon the requisite political will.
Possibly anticipating a transition, Washington quietly engineered a diplomatic opening with Caracas last November after a lengthy
standoff during which ambassadors were withdrawn.
Roberta Jacobson, assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, telephoned Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela's vice-president and
Chávez's preferred successor, and discussed, among other things, the restoration of full diplomatic relations.
"According to US officials, the Venezuelan vice-president offered to exchange ambassadors on the occasion of the beginning of President
Barack Obama's second term. Jacobson, in turn, is said to have proposed a step-by-step approach to improve bilateral relations, starting
with greater co-operation in counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and energy issues," Andres Oppenheimer reported in the Miami
Herald.
There is much ground to make up. "Relations between the United States and Venezuela have ranged from difficult to hostile since Chávez
took office in 1999 and began to implement what he calls 21st-century socialism," wrote a former US ambassador to Caracas, Charles
Shapiro.
"Chávez blamed a failed 2002 coup against him on the United States (not true), nationalised US companies, insulted the president of the
United States and blamed 'the empire' – his term for the United States – for every ill … In foreign affairs, the government actively
supports the Assad regime in Syria, rejects sanctions on Iran and generally opposes the US at every turn."
Despite such strains, economic self-interest always prevented a complete rupture. The US remained Venezuela's most important trading
partner throughout Chávez's presidency, buying nearly half its oil exports. Caracas is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the US.
shared
commerce now provides a formidable incentive and a launch platform for a fresh start.
In fact, the US imports more crude oil annually from Mexico and Venezuela than from the entire Persian Gulf. This
Whether the opportunity is grasped depends partly on Maduro, a Chávez loyalist but a reputed pragmatist with close ties to Raúl Castro
in Cuba.
Yet it depends even more on Obama,
whose first term, after a promising start, ended up perpetuating
Washington's historical neglect of Latin America. He now has a chance to do better.
The political climate seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening
dramatically. Trade between the US and Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports
rose by a massive 20% in both directions.
"We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business with Colombia [as] with Russia," an
Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the
world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico).
Despite this convergence, high-level US strategic thinking about the region has continued to lag, Sweig argued.
"For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America agenda – whether on issues of trade,
immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross, Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban vote' in Florida," she
said.
Obama could change this dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to unpick the
to colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.
Cuban problem, which continues
"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.
A move by Obama to end travel restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded
across the region, explode old stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro
regime's key backer, she suggested.
US Should start dialogue to lift embargo—leads way to solving tensions
Duran 09-- Alfredo Duran, Cuban Committee for Democracy, lawyer and an advocate for dialogue as a way
to bring regime change in Cuba (in an interview with Duran, “Possible Cuba Policy Changes Spark Debate”,
PBS Newshour, 4/8/9, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/cubadebate_04-08.html,
Accessed 7/3/12, jtc)
Oh, I believe so. I believe that it's about time that the United States and Cuba starts in the
process of dialogue on this tension.¶ We have been maintaining this policy of embargo for the past 50
years, and it has not worked. It's not working now, and it won't work for the next 50 years. It's about time
that we bring about a change. The status quo is what we need to change in Cuba.¶ We have a whole dynamic of
generational changes in Cuba. We have the historicals who are all above 80 years of age. And the only way
that we're going to bring about a future of prosperity, of liberty, of democracy in Cuba is if
we can send a strong message that the United States is not the enemy of the Cuban people,
that the United States is prepared to sit down and try to resolve the differences and hopefully, in that same
table, we can have the Cuban opposition sit down and discuss the future of Cuba.¶ We need to have national
reconciliation. We need to have the people starting to talk to each other in order to bring about a transition, a
peaceful transition, towards democracy in Cuba. I think it was helpful...
Lifting embargo improves relations, health and economy
Burns and Mills 1/30— Larry Birns ,Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills,
COHA Senior Research Fellow (“Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now”, Council on Hemispheric
Affairs, 1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed 7/3/12,
jtc)
The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps
to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five,
and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly
sponsoring terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a
credible regional policy of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity
and independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions. Washington’s path towards an urgently needed rehabilitation of its
hemispheric policy ought to also include consideration of Cuba’s own pressing national interests. A
thaw in US—Cuba
relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries, amplify
trade and commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both nations to
build bridges of friendship and cooperation. For this to happen, the Obama Administration would have to muster
the audacity to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless, it is
time to replace belligerency with détente.¶ This essay argues that the embargo against Cuba is blatantly counterproductive, immoral, and
anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental
political and economic reforms, Washington has had more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over
the years,
invasion, embargo, and covert psychological operations against Cuba have only served to
reinforce a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality in Havana. The island also has been subject to a relentless barrage of
propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997
bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly 1976 downing of a Cuban
civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise
defensive barricades in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland. ¶ Besides being counter-productive, there are also
strong moral arguments for ending the embargo. From a utilitarian point of view, the
policy is objectionable because it
has brought about needless suffering without convincing evidence of praiseworthy results.
One illustration of this is what happened during what Havana calls the “special period in time of peace.” This refers to the economic
crisis, hydrocarbon energy shortages, and food insecurity that followed the collapse of Soviet Bloc (1989 – 1991) which was Cuba’s main
trading partner and the source of vital subsidies. The embargo took an especially harsh toll during the special period. According to a
1997 report Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba by The American Association for
World Health: “the
U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of
large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens.” The report also observed that “the U.S. embargo has caused a
significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba.” The special period, including a serious food shortage in
1993, did not lead to the country’s surrender, but to the decisive restructuring of the agricultural sector, a number of economic reforms,
and the diversification of trade.
Relations thawing now- embargo and terror list kill co-operation
Haven, Armario, and Lee 6/21- PAUL HAVEN, Christine Armario, and Matthew Lee, Paul Have: the Associated
Press bureau chief in Havana, Cuba , Christine Armario: Education-Reporter, Associated Press, Mathew Lee: Education-Reporter,
Associated Press, (“US haltingly move to thaw?” Associated Press, Published: Friday, June 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m,
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130621/WIRE/130629941/2055/NEWS?p=4&tc=pg, Accessed: 6/28/13 MC)
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
Raul 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 publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today,
U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home
apparently not yet happened. President
phone numbers.
Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled 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. "These are tiny,
incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state
after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack
Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American
electorate in Florida, where there are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba.
Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of
limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S.
While direct American investment is still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money
transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's
cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and
refurbish homes bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms.
Several prominent
Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's
changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about
the threat posed by dissidents.
Likewise, a
U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was
met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further
openings with Cuba.
To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites them.
The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another
that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration
continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.
For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.
Transfer of technology would strengthen US-Cuba relationships
Lacey 9 Marc Lacey,Marc was The Times’s Mexico bureau chief, responsible for covering Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean. From 2006 to 2010, he led the newspaper’s coverage of Mexico’s drug war,
Cuba’s transition from Fidel Castro and Haiti’s struggle for stability, among other issues in more than 30
countries large and small.,The New York Times,
8/20/2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21storm.html?_r=0,6/27/13,MH)
The first tropical storms of the season have begun raging across the Atlantic, bringing with them all
manner of panic and potential destruction — and, behind the scenes, a little boost in United StatesCuba relations.¶ .¶ “We’ve had a close working relationship in regard to tropical cyclones that
goes back to the ’70s and ’80s,” said Max Mayfield, who retired in 2007 after seven years as director of the
National Hurricane Center in Miami. “Any storm that goes toward Florida goes over Cuba, so we
need their observations. And they need our data from the aircraft.Ӧ With coastal communities in
both countries vulnerable, meteorology could bring the longtime adversaries closer together,
especially with the policy of increased engagement pushed by President Obama, experts argue. Wayne Smith,
a former American diplomat in Havana who is now a fellow at the Washington-based Center for International
Policy, has brought an array of American officials to Cuba in recent years to look at how Cuban disaster
preparedness programs manage to keep the number of hurricane deaths on the island so low.¶
The time is right, US and Cuba moving forward on relations
Haven 6/21 --- Paul Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana (“Cuba, US Try
Talking, but Face Many Obstacles”, June 21, 2013, Associated Press,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-us-talking-face-obstacles19457659#.Uc2ttT7wJ9k, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)
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. President Raul 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 publically accusing them of being CIA front-men.
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 traveled 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.
"These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
US Cuba relations key to Caribbean security
Birns 13 – Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director [“Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now”, COHA, 1/30/13,
http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]
The Obama Administration should
be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important initial steps
to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba: immediately phase out the embargo, free the Cuban five, and
remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring terrorism. These measures
should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy of
mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and
independence of the Latin American and Caribbean regions.
Caribbean insecurity causes bioterrorism, LNG explosions, terrorism
Bryan 1 - Anthony T. Bryan, Director of the Caribbean Program – North/South Center, and Stephen E. Flynn, Senior Fellow – Council
on Foreign Relations [“Terrorism, Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation”, CFR, 11/21/01,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and _homeland_ security.html, accessed: 7/4/13, JK]
Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already
the linkages between drug
trafficking and terrorism are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such
connections have similar potential in the Caribbean. The security of major industrial
complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial
estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100 companies that produce the majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium
sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), are vulnerable targets.
Unfortunately, as experience has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to strike at
U.S. and European interests in Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more
critical when one considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases
from which to attack the United States. An airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or
the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists can sabotage or seize control of a
cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports and visas
issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States.
(To help counter this possibility, some countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have
not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again, Caribbean
countries are as vulnerable as anywhere
else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of biological weapons within national
borders.
Caribbean insecurity leads to corruption, violence
Brown 9 – Evan Brown, member of University of Pittsburgh, Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies [“DRUG
TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE, AND INSTABILITY IN MEXICO, COLOMBIA, AND THE CARIBBEAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY”, Strategic Studies Institute, 10/30/09, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB968.pdf, accessed:
7/4/13, JK]
the Caribbean has been the victim of extremely imbalanced relationships
with the United States. One panelist pointed out that the islands were a minor consumer of drugs but a
major transit point to the United States; with the attendant increase in corruption and
violence, the Caribbean governments are ill-suited to combat it.
Panelists noted that
Cuban instability results in Latin American instability, terrorism, democratic backsliding,
and distracts the US from critical hotspots including Africa, the Caucus, and North Korea
Gorrell 5- Tim Gorrell, Lieutenant Colonel (“CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC
CRISIS?” 3/18/05, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074, Accessed: 7/4/13, zs)
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro
transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who
will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba
who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will
create the conditions for instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within
the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the
current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba
finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then
must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee
the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be
several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.¶ Equally important, by adhering to a
negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems.
Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade.
Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as
indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be
individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the
Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no
Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of
operation and accelerate considerably.¶ In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity
for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can
export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against
this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt
the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout
the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military
forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel
greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential
In fact,
future problems.¶ U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals
1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the
past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based
on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily
subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)¶ The time has come to look
The U.S. can little afford to be
distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs,
does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of
crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and
realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then?
protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic
and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for
terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis
in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the
Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target
for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily
require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the
U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a
crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a
manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
The plan is key to relations—even if Castro steps down in 2018 it won’t be sufficient to
solve relations
Allam 2/25- Hannah Allam, writer for the McClatchy newspaper, (“Even if Raul Castro steps down in 2018,
U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw”, 2/25/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/3253690_p2/evenif-raul-castro-steps-down.html, Accessed: 2/25/13, zs)
Cuban President Raul Castro’s announcement over the weekend that he’ll step down in 2018
after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials
contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far the
regime’s reforms amount to window dressing.
By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by
the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81.
Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term
limits and age caps for future presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba
observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of
breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with the
communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. “Each
side is making small, subtle moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not going to melt overnight,” said
Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral
relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo.
Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the regime, allowing
the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before they’re too infirm to administer the
country.
Raul Castro’s anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the
most important takeaway from the president’s speech, several analysts agreed. “It doesn’t mean he’s being
chosen to succeed Raul, but it does mean they’re leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to
younger leaders,” Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is “an impressive career politician,” said Jorge Dominguez, a
Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He
moved through the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher
education, a member of the party’s political bureau and one of the Castro’s gaggle of vice presidents.
“In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for
the eventual succession,” Dominguez said. “He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to
add foreign experience to what had been principally a domestic-policy resume.” When Castro
elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there
was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba.
“It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a
formal designation as the successor,” Dominguez said. “Sure, there will be political fights in the future .
Theirs is a political party, after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But
Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner.”
The Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a
public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a delegation to Cuba this month to seek the
release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing communications
equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program. After meeting Castro, Sen. Patrick Leahy,
D-Vt., told reporters that it was time to move on from the U.S. “Cold War mentality” toward Cuba.
The State Department was publicly resistant Monday to calls for a softening of the U.S. stance toward Cuba,
with a spokesman bluntly dismissing Raul Castro’s promise to step down as not “a fundamental change” for
Cuba because it lacked concrete measures toward democratic rule. “We remain hopeful for the day
that the Cuban people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick
their own leaders in an open democratic process and enjoy the freedoms of speech and association
without fear of reprisal,” State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Monday . “We’re
clearly not there yet.” In the 35-minute speech he gave when he was ratified for a second term as
president, Raul Castro made clear that he had no intention of moving away from his socialist roots.
“I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba. I was elected to defend, maintain and
continue to perfect socialism, not destroy it,” Castro told Parliament, according to a translation
published in news reports.
That message is why longtime Cuba observers find it hard to swallow that such an entrenched regime would
willingly push reforms that could hasten the demise of Communist Party rule. Critics say Cubans are less
likely to see a shift in U.S. policy than a rise in domestic unrest that forces change from within as Cubans grow
impatient for promised reforms. “It’s political kabuki and I’m not sure it can hold together for
another five years,” said Jason Poblete, a Cuban-American attorney in Washington and an
outspoken critic of the Castro regime.
Lifting Embargo key to US-Cuba Relations – that enhances security cooperation
Burns and Mills 1/30— Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Director and Frederick B. Mills, COHA
Senior Research Fellow (Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
1/30/13, http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/, Accessed: 7/10/13, ckr)
The Obama Administration should be prepared to take, in quick progression, three important
initial steps to trigger a speedy rapprochement with Cuba : immediately phase out the embargo, free
the Cuban five, and remove Havana from the spurious State Department roster of nations purportedly sponsoring
terrorism. These measures should be seen as indispensable if Washington is to ever mount a credible regional policy
of mutual respect among nations and adjust to the increased ideological diversity and independence of the Latin
American and Caribbean regions. Washington’s path towards an urgently needed rehabilitation of its hemispheric
policy ought to also include consideration of Cuba’s own pressing national interests. A thaw in US—Cuba
relations would enhance existing security cooperation between the countries, amplify trade and
commercial ties, and guarantee new opportunities for citizens of both nations to build bridges of
friendship and cooperation. For this to happen, the Obama Administration would have to muster the audacity
to resist the anti-Castro lobby and their hardline allies in Congress, whose Cuba bashing has no limits. Nevertheless,
it is time to replace belligerency with détente.¶ This essay argues that the embargo against Cuba is blatantly
counterproductive, immoral, and anachronistic. If the initial purpose of this measure was to punish Havana
for expropriating U.S. property and to bring about fundamental political and economic reforms, Washington has had
more than 50 years to see that the status quo is flawed. Over the years, invasion, embargo, and covert psychological
operations against Cuba have only served to reinforce a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality in Havana. The island also has
been subject to a relentless barrage of propaganda and terrorist assaults organized by militant anti-Castro zealots to
advance their cause. These attacks include the 1997 bombing of three hotels in Havana which resulted in the death
of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, and the deadly 1976 downing of a Cuban civilian jet. Rather than succumbing to
pressure, all of these incidents have given the majority of Cuban nationals good reason to raise defensive barricades
in the face of repeated threats to the survival of their homeland.
Cuba wants relations with the US – embargo blocks it
Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press (Cuba embargo: UN vote urges
US to lift embargo, 10/26/10, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cuba-embargo-UNvote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/10/13, ckr)
Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island nation of
Palau supporting the United States. "This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno
Rodriguez told the body, "absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on
maintaining knowing that it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire
people." "This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added,
complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character." Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to
be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations with the United States," Rodriguez said.
American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted that
the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open environment
in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." "We should not lose sight of that in a
debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and focused on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to
help the Cuban people," he said.
Baby steps towards US and Cuba increased relations
Haven 6/22/13- Paul Haven, former Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, deputy Latin America and
Caribbean editor (“Cuba, U.S. try talking, but still face many obstacles”, Daily Star,
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2013/Jun-21/221161-cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles.ashx#axzz2XX13hW88, accessed: 6/28/13, ML)
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. President Raul
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 publically accusing them of being CIA
front men. 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 traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials. 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. “These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backward are
equally high.”
Appointment of Diaz Canel does not mean normalization of relations.
Alam 2013 [Hannah Alam. Hannah is a writer for the Miami herald. “Even if Raul Castro
steps down in 2018, U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw”. Miami Herald. McClatchy
Newspapers. 2/25/13. Accessed: July 2, 2013.]
WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul Castro’s announcement over the weekend that he’ll step
down in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the countdown for U.S.
officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island nation. But analysts caution that so far
the regime’s reforms amount to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from
normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing
revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would
he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents,
the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed
by others as disingenuous. But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State
Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-Cuba relations,
which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with the communist bloc
and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in place. “Each side is making small,
subtle moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not going to melt overnight,” said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army
colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling
for an end to the embargo. Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily selfserving for the regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before they’re
too infirm to administer the country. Raul Castro’s anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel DiazCanel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the president’s
speech, several analysts agreed. “It doesn’t mean he’s being chosen to succeed Raul, but it does
mean they’re leaving the gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders,”
Crowther said. Diaz-Canel is “an impressive career politician,” said Jorge Dominguez, a Cuban American
professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through
the Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of
the party’s political bureau and one of the Castro’s gaggle of vice presidents. “In those roles, he has a wider
array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the eventual succession,” Dominguez said. “He has
also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domesticpolicy resume.” When Castro elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping
aside, for the first time there was an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba. “It is true that other would-be
successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and none had a formal designation as the
successor,” Dominguez said. “Sure, there will be political fights in the future. Theirs is a political party, after
all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner.” The
Castro brothers know by now that such moves also play well in the United States, where
they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a
delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for
illegally importing communications equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program.
Cuba open to relations with US – recent actions show
News24 6/27/13 – News24: Breaking News. First. (“Cuba not safe for Snowden – analysts,” News24,
6/27/13, http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cuba-not-safe-for-Snowden-analysts-20130627, accessed:
7/4/13, amf)
US-Cuban relations have also been strained by the case of Alan Gross, a US government
subcontractor who was convicted of spying and sentenced in 2011 to 15 years in prison.
But now, with Raul Castro introducing timid economic reforms, a greater political
pragmatism is seen as gaining ground.
Economic reform
A recent reform made it easier for Cubans to travel abroad.
And Cuba is discussing migration-related questions with the United States, where hundreds of
thousands of Cubans have sought exile over the decades.
Cuba is on the US black list of states protecting terrorists, and the two countries have no
extradition treaty.
But that did not hamper swift co-operation in early April, when it took Havana just 48
hours to repatriate a US couple, which had abducted its own children after losing custody over them
and fled to Cuba.
The case reflects an interest in Havana in not straining relations with Washington, even if
Cuba still does not want to make "unilateral and definitive concessions" without receiving
anything in return, Lopez Levy told dpa.
US-Cuba ties key to economic competitiveness and preventing conflict, particularly in
Latin America
Honda 10 – Representative Mike Honda, U.S. Representative for California's 17th
congressional district, encompassing western San Jose and Silicon Valley, has served in
Congress since 2001. (“Honda: Embargo on Cuba No Longer Makes Sense”, Roll Call, May 4,
2010, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_126/-45782-1.html, accessed: 7/3/13, LR)
Politically, now that Latin America stands beside Cuba — as evidenced by diplomatic
reinstatements with holdouts El Salvador and Costa Rica, and the reintegration of Cuba into
the Organization for American States and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States — the U.S. risks ruinous relations with countries that see the blockade as backward.
The U.S. is already marginalized: CLACS explicitly bars U.S. participation.
The impact of this Latin tack toward insularity is not insignificant. Consider grandstanding
by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who rebuffed Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s efforts to bring Brazil on Iran sanctions while courting Cuba’s leadership.
Lula, capitalizing on Cuba’s appetite for growth, proposed investments in industrial,
agriculture and infrastructure projects, including ports and hotels, and an agreement with
Brazil’s oil company.
We will see more of this. The Cubans are seeking suitors. Like the Bank of the South, Latin
America’s attempt to wean countries off U.S. institutions like the World Bank, the longer we
keep Cuba at arm’s length, the more likely Brazil and others will take our place.
Embargo causes US-Cuba war
Amash 12- Brandon Amash, writer at the Prospect Journal, (“EVALUATING THE
CUBAN EMBARGO,” 7/23/12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluatingthe-cuban-embargo/, 6/28/13, CAS)
§ 3.3: The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military
conflict may be inevitable in the future if the embargo’s explicit goal — creating an insurrection
in Cuba to overthrow the government — is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step
in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, “Americans are not prepared to commit the military resources […]”
(Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like America’s current situation
with isolated rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cuba’s isolation may also lead to war for
other reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These consequences are
inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the improvement of human
rights.
Cuba wants relations with the US
Snow 10- Anita Snow, Editor on Latin America regional desk at Associated Press,
(“Cuba embargo: UN vote urges US to lift embargo,” 10/26/10,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1026/Cubaembargo-UN-vote-urges-US-to-lift-embargo, 7/3/13, CAS)
Last year's U.N. vote was 187-3 to end the embargo, with only Israel and the tiny Pacific island
nation of Palau supporting the United States.
"This is about a cruel and aggressive policy," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the body,
"absolutely contrary to international law, that this government insists on maintaining
knowing that it causes harm, hardships and violates the human rights of an entire people."
"This is not a bilateral issue, as is commonly repeated by the U.S. representatives," Rodriguez added,
complaining about the sanctions' "remarkable extraterritorial character."
Nevertheless, Cuba "will continue to be ready to establish peaceful and respectful relations
with the United States," Rodriguez said.
American Ambassador Ronald D. Godard, U.S. Senior Area Adviser for Western Hemisphere Affairs, insisted
that the embargo is a bilateral issue "and part of a broader set of relations meant to encourage a more open
environment in Cuba and increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."
"We should not lose sight of that in a debate mired in rhetorical arguments of the past and
focused on tactical differences, a debate that does nothing to help the Cuban people," he said.
Removing embargo solves narcotics – cooperation key
Johnson, Spector and Lilac 10 - Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program,
Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National Security Program , Kristina Lilac, National Security
Program, Senior Fellows of The Third Way Institute, (“End the Embargo of Cuba”, Article for
The Third Way Institute, 9/16/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, Accessed 7/02/13, AW)
Others have argued¶ that US¶ -¶ Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter¶ -¶ narcotics efforts
cou¶ ld benefit¶ both countries and initiate trust¶ -¶ building among the two countries.¶
Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to¶ meet its stated
purpose of bringing change to Cuba’s communist government, making¶ a change in c¶ ourse a
necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help¶ to move Cuba into the 21¶ st¶
century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US¶ from engaging Cuba and presenting
the US with an opportunity to bring about¶ change in Cuba through¶ economic and diplomatic
channels.¶ By opening Cuba, the US¶ could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for
nearly fifty years.
US-EU relations
Lifting the embargo improves democracy, relations, and US global reputation
Hanson, Batten, & Ealey 1/16 --- Daniel Hanson, Dayne Batten & Harrison Ealey, Daniel
Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is
affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison
Ealey is a financial analyst (“It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of
Cuba”, January 16, 2013, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-timefor-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed June 28, 2013, MY)
For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission
from their government. The move, part of a broader reform package being phased in by Raul Castro,
underscores the irrationality of America’s continuation of a five-decade old embargo.¶ While the
embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-inmy-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The
official position is outdated, hypocritical, and
counterproductive.¶ The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the
confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo – codified primarily
in the Helms-Burton Act – aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions,
and international legal penalties.¶ Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the government has
undertaken
more than 300 economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and restrictions have been
lifted on property use, travel, farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is
still a place of oppression and gross human rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person
nation is moving in the right direction.¶ Despite this progress, the U.S. spends massive amounts
of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods out of the United States. At least 10 different agencies are
responsible for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. government
devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year.¶ At the Miami International
Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs inspections than are
visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control inspections each year are centered on
rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government
resources
could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from
Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum.¶ At present, the U.S. is largely alone in
restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between the United States and
allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been
publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out
trade and migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the
Castro takeover have dropped their claims.¶ Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba
unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly
higher because of the embargo. For American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy
to conduct exchanges.¶ Yet, estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial
infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like
Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. ¶ What’s
worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to
collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to American interests. For instance, in
2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an underwater
communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶ Repealing the
embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries
who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered normal
trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their
human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in
November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated
by its military government. Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is trending towards
democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the embargo to be rolled back?¶ The cost of the embargo to the United States is
high in both dollar and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed champion of liberty in their
hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American
charitable relief, business innovation, and tourism.¶ A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving towards reform makes little
sense, especially when America’s
allies are openly hostile to the embargo. It keeps a broader discussion
about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to
go.
The EU has made it illegal to comply with the embargo.
Stern 12 - Scott Stern, undergraduate at Yale University who majors in International Relations [“Lift the Cuba embargo,” Yale Daily News,
2/10/12, http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, accessed: 6/27/13, JK]
It has also
hurt the United States’ relationships with other countries — the European Parliament actually
passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to comply with certain parts of the embargo. The purpose of the
The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans’ access to good food, modern technology and useful medicine.
embargo was undeniably to make life so difficult for Cubans that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The
United States government has maintained — for 50 years — that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human rights and
liberty.
Challenges for societal autonomy have been co-opted and limited by state control
Hoffmann 11- Bert Hoffmann, Senior Researcher GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies ( “Civil Society 2.0?: How the
Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba”, GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency
of Political Systems, January 2011
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gigahamburg.de%2Fdl%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D%2Fcontent%2Fpublikationen%2Fpdf%2Fwp156_hoffmann.pdf&ei=D93SUbinBNi4AOfwoHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGPPcalsf1La5yMENpZb7PxMV2i3Q&sig2=cSL3cBqrRtpr1ysxnhEqzQ
The Cuban Revolution of 1959 redefined state-societyrelations. Most existing civil society
organizations were either disbanded or transformed (and new ones created) according to a mold in which
loyalty and subordination to the revolutionary leadership were a conditio sine qua non.1 With the socalled "process of institutionalization" in the 1970s, state-society rela- tions were formally
modeled in Marxist-Leninist fashion: the Constitution of 1976 defined the Communist Party as
the "highest leading force of society and of the state, which organ- izes and guides the common
effort" (Republica de Cuba 1992 §5) and declared as mission of "the social and mass
organizations [.] the edification, consolidation and defense of the so- cialist society" (ibid. 7). Freedom of
speech and of press were limited, by constitutional pre- scription, "in keeping with the objectives
of socialist society" (Republica de Cuba 1992). To this end, Article 52 of the Cuban Constitution
effectively establishes a monopoly on mass media: "Material conditions for the exercise of that
right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or
social property and can never be private property" (ibid. § 52,1).1 For Cuban civil society prior to 1959
see Armony/Crahan 2007; on trade unions and the women's federation see Marifeli Perez-Stable 1994.
Organizational activities that remained (at least partially) outside of these parameters
were few and narrowly restricted; arguably, the most important one being the Catholic church, which
maintained a nationwide and legally recognized institutional infrastructure that included media for internal
circulation (Armony/Crahan 2007).2 In the charismatic brand of socialism that characterized post-1959 Cuba and
which set it apart from the standard Eastern European model (Hoffmann 2008), formal prescriptions like the
constitutional provisions on the media were complemented with declarations by the charismatic leader, Fidel Castro,
which carried no less practical weight. The key statement on the margins for voice were his so-called
"words to the intellectuals" from 1961, which pro- vided the following maxim: "Within the
Revolution, everything. Against the Revolution, nothing."3 This sentence, repeated ad infinitum ever
since, acquired law-like status and left ample discretion for the power-holders to define at every
instance what was "within" and what was "against" the revolution. Aside from media, a central
and related concern was on public space. In the dualism of Cuba's charismatic brand of socialism,
formal restrictions on the freedom of assembly also found their informal equivalent in the slogan
"The street is Fidel's!",4 a code the state invoked to justify the prohibition or repression of
protesting voices in public. The severe limits imposed on public voices contrasted with an often
surprising level of tolerance towards criticism voiced in private-an ambivalence which led Cubans to paraphrase
Fidel's 1961 words as "Under the roof, everything. In the street, nothing. After the regime collapses in
Eastern Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, a profound economic, social and
ideological crisis in Cuba ensued, one that called into ques- tion the viability of state-society
relations as they had developed in the three decades since 1959. Internationally, civil society had gone from
a buzzword in academia to a resounding career path in international and development politics. Particularly the role
ascribed to civil society in bringing down state-socialism in Eastern Europe (Arato/Cohen 1992, Havel 1978)
provided the background for the concept being taken up by U.S. policy towards Cuba, which in the early 1990s,
publicly adopted "the fostering of Cuba's civil society" as a "second track" next to economic sanctions to bring about
regime change in Havana. These political overtones notwithstanding, it was within the official
intellectual institutions on the island that in the mid-1990s, the term "civil society" became the
focus of a key debate about the country's course (Gray/Kapcia 2008). As the concept of civil
society stresses some degree of autonomy from the "political society" (state, parties, parliaments, etc.)
(e.g. Fernandez 1993: 99), in a state-socialist country this conception invariably raises the question about the
role of state and party and the margins of associational autonomy within such a framework. This
debate about civil society within state-socialism marked a new discussion not only for Cuba, but also internationally.
An article by Rafael Hernandez from Havana's Center for American Studies (CEA) initi-ated the Cuban civil society
debate in 1994. In it, he underscored the Marxist ideological cre- dentials of the term claiming its tradition in the
writings of Hegel, Marx and Gramsci and argued for "the necessity and usefulness [of applying] the concept to the
analysis of current problems in Cuba" (Hernandez 1994: 30).6 Hernandez argued that both civil society and
the socialist state are "organic segments of the socialist system," which are interconnected and
mutually reinforcing (Hernandez 1994: 31). Moreover, the distinction between civil society and the state should
be of great practical importance for Cuba because "the dynamics of civil society have been overshadowed by a
strong politicization of social relations and institutions in Cuba" (ibid.: 30). This indirect call for a de-
politicization of social relations provides the signpost for the ensuing debate: reclaiming greater
autonomy of the social sphere and its organizations and institutions from the state. The background
of this argument is the deep economic crisis that has plagued Cuba since the demise of its socialist allies overseas in
1989/90 and the consequences of that crisis for Cuban society-above all, the bitter divide between the depressed
peso economy and the emergent enclaves of "dollarized" sectors in tourism and joint ventures, and the rapidly
growing role of illegal and legal market mechanisms.7 On this, Hernandez (ibid.: 30) writes: The problems the
Cuban society is facing cannot be contained within the limits of an economic analysis. Both the
causes and the consequences of the crisis transcend this dimension. However, even within this narrow
framework it is obvious that 'the realm of economic relations' in Cuba has changed [.]. It now comprises phenomena
such as the informal economy, which is characterized by the growth of independent work and the black market, as
well as the rise of new forms of labor in the mixed sector of the new, markedly differentiated, economy. The
concept of civil society suggested by Hernandez is thus framed as primarily a response to the
increasing differentiation of Cuban society, resulting from the economic crisis. Other con- tributions pushed
the Cuban civil society debate further. Most importantly, Hugo Azcuy, one of Hernandez's colleagues at the CEA,
wrote of the "necessity for more plural expressions in Cuban society," (Azcuy 1995: 105, emphasis in
original) for which the concept of civil society "should not only be used as an instrument of
analysis, but also as a project" (ibid., emphasis in 6 Even at this early point, political resistance
against the use of the term became evident. When published in the journal of the official Cuban writers'
association, UNEAC, it was prefaced by a "Letter to the Editor " in which a member of the
association reprimands Hernandez for his "imprecise" use of the term which he identified with
the counter-revolutionary strategy of the U.S. government. 7 Parallel to the debate on civil society, a
similar debate evolved about increased autonomy for economic actors and resulting reform steps (see
Carranza/Gutierrez/Monreal 1995; for an overview see Hoffmann 1995; 1997). original). This idea of civil society
as a project of socialist renewal hence became a leitmotif of Cuba's intellectual reform discourse in the mid-1990s.
Azcuy (1995: 108) posits "the strength- ening of Cuban
civil society and its necessary autonomy within
the framework of the revolu- tionary project of which it understands itself to be a part" as its
frame of reference.8 If state authorities feared civil society as a potential loss of power, in the
following text contribution Hernandez is explicit in reverting this logic. The activation of civil society
is meant precisely to come to the rescue of a socialist state whose needs for "new forms of legitimacy" in order to secure regime stability are acknowledged: As the sphere in which the tensions and
conflicts facing the state are enacted, it is in the interest of and the responsibility of the state to search within civil
society for new forms of legitimacy and arenas of consensus. [.] Without the consensus of civil soci- ety, not only
will the legitimacy of the government suffer damage, but also the stability of the system itself. (Hernandez 1996:
88) In terms of audience, the reach of this debate was limited. It mostly moved within academic or
intellectual institutions, with the Center for American Studies (CEA) as the epicenter,9 and journals, including
Temas magazine, directed by Hernandez, became the key forums of the debate. The civil society discourse
hardly ever found reflections in the state-controlled mass media. However, there was an empirical side
to this debate which was played out in the tug- of-war about the redefinition of the nature of societal associations
and their relation to the state. The economic crisis had not only led to a heterogenization of society,
but had also left established institutions in cultural, social or academic fields cash-strapped, as the
money from the state coffers dried up. As a consequence, a search for new funding possibilities be- gan. While
also playing well to members' aspirations of more autonomy from the state, the label "nongovernmental organization" (NGO) promised to be the key for access to donor money from
international development actors, both private and public.
US-UN Relations Advantage 1AC
International backlash against embargo – undermines global multilateral policies
GA 12 - General Assembly of the United Nations, (“‘Archaic, Punitive’ Embargo Must be Consigned to History
Books, Say Speakers, as General Assembly, for Twenty-First Year, Demands End to Cuba Blockade Cuban Foreign
Minister Sites Embargo’s Devastating Impact on Development; United States Delegate Says Economic Woes Due to
Havana’s Own Failed Policies”, Transcript of the United Nations Sixty-Seventh General Assembly 35th and 36th
Meetings, 11/13/12, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11311.doc.htm, Accessed 7/03/13, AW)
Voting nearly-unanimously to adopt the General Assembly’s twenty-first consecutive resolution calling for an end
to the United States’ blockade against Cuba, United Nations delegates urged President Barack Obama, fresh-off a
re-election victory, to “act on the right side of history” and lift Washington’s crushing economic, commercial
and financial embargo on the island nation. By the text of the resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 188 in
favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, Palau) with 2 abstentions (Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia), the Assembly reaffirmed the principles of sovereign equality of States, nonintervention in internal affairs and freedom of international trade and navigation, among others. For
details of the vote, see Annex. The Assembly expressed concern about the continued application of the 1996
“Helm-Burton Act” – which extended the decades-old blockade’s reach to countries trading with
Cuba – and whose extraterritorial effects affected the sovereignty of other States and the legitimate
interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction. The resolution reiterated t on States to refrain from
applying such measures, in conformity with their obligations under the United Nations Charter, and urged
States that had applied such laws to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible. Introducing that text was
Bruno Eduardo Rodriquez Parilla, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, who recalled that, in 2008, then presidential
candidate Barack Obama had electrified the American people, and after being elected, had announced “a new
beginning with Cuba”. However, the reality of the past four years had been characterized by a persistent
tightening of the blockade, particularly its extra-territorial dimensions. “Keeping this policy in force is
not in the national interest of the United States”, he said. Quite the contrary, it harmed the interest of American
citizens and companies, especially in times of economic crisis and high unemployment. Moreover, there was no
legitimate or moral reason to maintain the blockade, which was “anchored in the Cold War”. Indeed, it “is just a
weapon in the hands of an ever more exiguous, isolated, violent and arrogant minority”, he said. As was stated in
recent Secretary-General’s report on the matter, the economic damage accumulated over more than 50 years, until
2011, amounted to one trillion six billion dollars. “Any sensible person could figure out the living standards and
development levels that we could have achieved if we had had those resources available”, he added, calling the
blockade one of the main causes of Cuba’s economic problems and the major obstacle to its economic and social
development. Indeed, the embargo was an act of aggression - a permanent threat to the stability of a country –
and constituted a gross violation of the rules that governed international trade, freedom of navigation
and the sovereign rights of States. “President Obama has the opportunity to start a new policy
towards Cuba”, he said. It would be a difficult task and he might face serious obstacles, but there was no doubt that
it would constitute a “historical legacy”. The representative of the United States, however, said that the resolution
presented sought to “identify an external scapegoat” for Cuba’s economic problems, where in fact, they were caused
by the Cuban Government’s policies over the last half a century. In reality, the United States was a “deep and
abiding friend” to the Cuban people; by its own account it was one of Cuba’s principal trading partners and it had
authorized an estimated $1.2 billion in humanitarian assistance in 2011, as well as billions in remittances and other
forms of assistance. The hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans who had sent remittances and travelled to the
island since the start of the Obama Administration were a central part of the strategy to help Cubans have the
opportunities that they deserved, he continued, noting that, in contrast, Cuba still had one of the most restrictive
economic systems in the world. Irrespective of United States policy, it was “unrealistic” to expect Cuba to thrive
unless it opened its monopolies, respected international property rights and allowed unfettered access to the Internet,
among other things. In addition, the Assembly could not ignore the “ease and frequency” with which Cuba inflicted
politically motivated detentions, impeded access to journalism and restricted similar freedoms. The resolution before
the Assembly today only served to distract from the real problems facing the Cuban people, he stressed. The
representative of India, while noting some of the detrimental effects of the longstanding embargo, agreed that there
had been some relaxation of the strained relationship between the United States and Cuba in recent years. Taking
advantage of limited openings under its Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, the United
States had become the largest exporter of agricultural products to Cuba, he noted. In addition, the steps taken by the
United States in January 2011 to reduce restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba were positive developments.
However, they remained “far from making a fundamental change” in the complex framework of laws and
regulations, which were part of the embargo, he said. “The path of history today is for those who choose openness”,
said the representative of Cape Verde, who spoke on behalf of the African Group . It was “inconceivable” for
African countries to remain silent in the face of the adverse consequences of the longstanding embargo
against Cuba, he added, recalling a resolution adopted at the African Union Summit in July through which the
continent’s leaders had reissued a call inviting the United States to lift the longstanding embargo. In that respect, he
quoted Nelson Mandela, saying that “to be free is not merely to cast off ones chains, but to live in a way that
respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Some delegates stressed the negative impact of the
blockade on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, sustainable development and
other essential pursuits. In that vein, the representative of Kazakhstan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that the embargo impeded poverty eradication and violated the
basic human rights to food, health and education, humanitarian assistance and overall national
progress. Cuba’s already harsh situation was further aggravated by the effects of climate change to which its
geographical location made it particularly vulnerable, she stressed, adding that the embargo also contradicted
the regulations and directions of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which prohibited the adoption of
measures likely to hinder international free trade and shipping, and the widest possible partnership between two
partners. Despite such stark challenges, many speakers offered words of support to the Cuban people, noting the
strides made by the country even in the face of the blockade. In that regard, the representative of Venezuela
said that while the embargo was an expression of a “barbarous” policy, the Cuban people had nevertheless
overcome that unjust practice in a “stoic and heroic” way, moving forward with the principle of solidarity even
beyond their own borders. Some “advocates of imperialism” maintained that Cuba was a threat to the region, which
was a “massive lie”, he stressed. Cuba had, on the contrary, been an element of support and hope in the area of
solidarity with States, contributing to the social well being of many other countries. He noted that President Obama
had managed to connect with the majority feeling of the Latin American population living in the United States, and
urged him to continue along those lines by finally ending the embargo. If the new United States Government moved
forward in that regard, President Obama would indeed be “acting on the right side of history”, he stressed in that
respect. The representative of Egypt said the embargo against Cuba was the longest and toughest system of
sanctions ever applied against any country in modern history, and agreed that it must be lifted. At a time when
peoples in his region were bravely fighting for freedom and justice, and some of them – like in Egypt - were
establishing the foundations of a genuine democracy, it was troubling that the United States continued to adopt
coercive measures to prevent a neighbouring nation from freely deciding its own political and economic system. He
also agreed with other speakers that the re-election of President Obama last week offered the American
administration a fresh opportunity to rectify the historic injustice inflicted on Cuba. In that regard, he expressed his
delegation’s hope that such an important opportunity not be missed. Also speaking today was a Member of
Parliament of Indonesia. Taking part in the discussion were the representatives of Algeria (speaking on behalf of the
“Group of 77” developing countries and China, Barbados (speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM)), Chile (speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)),
Brazil (speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)), Iran (speaking on behalf of the NonAligned Movement) and Cyprus (speaking on behalf of the European Union). Also speaking were the
representatives of Mexico, Sudan, the Russian Federation, China, Ecuador, Bolivia and Viet Nam. Also making a
statement in explanation of position before the vote was the representative of Nicaragua. Speaking in explanation
after the vote were the representatives of Nigeria, Zambia, Saint Lucia, Uruguay, Namibia, the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belarus and
Syria. Also speaking in explanation after the vote were the representatives of Zimbabwe, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Myanmar, Ghana, Argentina, Iran (in his national capacity), South Africa and the Solomon Islands. Exercising his
right of reply was the representative of Cuba. The Assembly will reconvene tomorrow, 14 November at 10:00 a.m.
to consider the report of the Human Rights Council. Background The General Assembly met today to consider the
Secretary-General’s report on the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by
the United States of America against Cuba (document A/67/118), which summarizes the responses of 145
Governments and 26 United Nations bodies, received as at 9 July 2012, following a request by the SecretaryGeneral on that matter. Replies received after that date will be reproduced in addenda to the present report. In its 27page submission to the report, the Cuban Government reviews the history of the 53-year embargo and calls it an act
of “genocide”, as understood by the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of
1948. In addition, it stresses that the embargo is an act of “economic war”, per the Declaration concerning the laws
of naval war, adopted by the Naval Conference of London in 1909. It goes on to state that the economic damage
caused to the Cuban people by the embargo as of December 2011 - taking into account the depreciation of the dollar
against the price of gold in the international market - amounted to $1.066 trillion. At current prices, the damage
amounts to more than $108 billion, based on “very conservative estimates”. The report covers such areas as the main
elements of the embargo, its impact on socially sensitive sectors and on different sectors of the Cuban economy, as
well as opposition to the policy. It concludes, among other things, that the embargo is an “absurd, obsolete, illegal
and morally unsustainable policy” leading to shortages and suffering for the Cuban people, hampering and delaying
Cuba’s development and seriously harming the country’s economy, and calls for its unconditional lifting, without
delay. Also before the Assembly was a relevant draft resolution (document A/67/L.2) by which it would call upon
all States – in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations - to refrain from
promulgating and applying laws and measures whose extraterritorial effects affected the sovereignty of States, the
legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation. It would
also urge States that had and continued to apply such laws and measures to take the necessary steps to repeal or
invalidate them as soon as possible. Also by the text of the resolution, the Assembly would request the SecretaryGeneral to prepare a report on the implementation of the present resolution in light of the purposes and principles of
the Charter and international law, and to submit it to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session. Statements
MOURAD BENMEHIDI (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said that
the embargo against Cuba contravened the fundamental norms of international law, international humanitarian law,
the United Nations Charter and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States. Furthermore, its
continued imposition violated the principles of the sovereign equality of States and of non-intervention and noninterference in each other’s domestic affairs. The measures announced by the United States Government two years
ago, which related to a certain relaxation of restrictions on travel and transfer of remittances, had had a “very limited
effect” and did not change the framework of laws, regulations and provisions of the embargo, which was still in
place, he added. The deepening impact of the ongoing global economic and financial crisis and the continued
embargo would continue to further aggravate hardships for the Cuban people, he went on to say. In addition, the
embargo frustrated efforts towards the achievement of all the internationally agreed development goals, including
the Millennium Development Goals, and negatively affected regional cooperation in the area. Today, the Group
once again reiterated its longstanding and principled position on the matter of the embargo, and recalled the
Ministerial Declaration of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in New York in
September, to the effect that the Ministers “firmly rejected” the imposition of laws and regulations with
extraterritorial impact and all other forms of coercive measures. They had also called on the international
community neither to recognize those measures nor apply them, he said. JOSEPH GODDARD (Barbados), speaking
for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted that this was the twenty-first consecutive occasion that the
Assembly was meeting to raise the sustained chorus of opposition to the United States’ imposition of the economic,
commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. While in some parts of the world, twenty-first “birthdays” were
especially commemorated, the twenty-first year of adoption of the annual resolution on the Cuban embargo should
instead give that Assembly pause for reflection. The embargo had persisted for too long in spite of the unambiguous
reprove of an overwhelming majority of Member States, as demonstrated by the annual adoption of the resolution
before delegates. He went to stress that CARICOM member States had camaraderie with Cuba, which had remained
cordial and resilient even through a continually evolving hemispheric and international geo-political landscape.
Cuba maintained embassies in all independent countries of the Community and continued to show itself as an
integral part of the region. The Community and Cuba had developed and enjoyed mutually beneficial programmes
of cooperation and trade in several key areas including physical education and sports, accounting, natural sciences,
humanities, economy, special education, health and medicine. CARICOM States also continued to value and enjoy
long-established, warm and friendly relations with the United States. It was in that spirit that the Community urged
the United States to heed ts of the international community to bring an end to the embargo. ANTONIO PEDRO
MONTEIRO LIMA (Cape Verde), speaking on behalf of the African Group and aligning with the Group of 77
developing countries and China, said it was “inconceivable” for African countries to remain silent in the face of the
adverse consequences of the longstanding embargo against Cuba. By a resolution adopted at the African Union
Summit in July, leaders had reissued a call inviting the United States to lift that embargo, he said; the Group’s vote
today in favour of the Assembly’s annual resolution would be another step in advancing that call. Indeed, he said,
quoting the famous statesman Winston Churchill, “criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary”. Criticism
played the same role as pain in the human body, bringing attention to the fact that “things are not right”, he added.
Furthermore, the Assembly “status quo” on the resolution ran contrary to the pursuit of a more equitable and just
world, as well as the progress of Cuba towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and regional
integration. “The path of history today is for those who choose openness”, he said. He quoted Nelson Mandela to the
effect that “to be free is not merely to cast off ones chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the
freedom of others.” OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ ( Chile) said on behalf of the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States (CELAC) that the commercial, economic and financial embargo imposed on Cuba was contrary to
the letter, spirit, principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and international law. The Community was
concerned about the extraterritorial effects of the embargo that affected the sovereignty of other States, the
legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation. The
embargo, commenced in 1959 had continued to this day and had transformed into a strict system of unilateral
measures, which had continued over time creating huge injustices for the Cuban people. In itself, the unilateral
measure was a contradiction with the multilateralism, the openness and the dialogue promoted by the Charter. The
Community was in favour of adoption of the resolution before the Assembly. He emphasized the inconsistency that
existed between the application of unilateral measures, which had no backing in international law, and the letter,
spirit, principles and purpose of the Charter, urging the United States to make necessary adjustments to its
international behaviour in that regard and align its legislation with the Charter of the United Nations. BYRGANYM
AITIMOVA (Kazakhstan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), noted that the item
had been on the Assembly’s agenda for 20 years with little progress to record. Guided by the principles of
international law, the OIC upheld the right of every nation to follow its own unique path of development and
therefore condemned any unilateral action, which affected the sovereignty and interests of another State and its
people. Further, it did not agree with any external regulations that infringed, impeded or delayed the development of
any country, including in the economic, commercial and financial spheres. Even measures meant to relax restrictions
had limited effect while the embargo remained in place to the detriment of the Cuban people. The embargo
frustrated efforts toward achieving the Millennium Goals, she continued, impeding poverty eradication, and
violating the basic human rights to food, health and education, humanitarian assistance and overall national
progress. That already harsh situation was further aggravated by the effects of climate change to which Cuba’s
geographical location made it particularly vulnerable. She went on to stress that the embargo contradicted the
regulations and directions of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which prohibited the adoption of measures
likely to hinder international free trade and shipping, and the widest possible partnership between two partners. She
joined “the overwhelming majority of the international community” in calls to lift the embargo against Cuba.
MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI ( Brazil), speaking on behalf of Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said
that the Group had been founded on the principles of interdependence and good neighbourly relations. Alongside its
Latin American neighbours, MERCOSUR showed respect for the sovereignty of States and for international law,
and it viewed that the embargo ran contrary to the principles of the Unite Nations Charter and international law. In
particular, she said, it violated the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other States. The embargo also ran
contrary to the principles of justice and human rights, limited and delayed social and economic progress and
inhibited the achievement of the Millennium Goals and other development targets. MERCOSUR therefore regretted
the fact that the unilaterally imposed embargo continued unabated, she said. MERCOSUR rejected, in principle, all
unilateral and extra-territorial measures, which caused harm to peoples and obstructed regional integration. By once
again reaffirming its support to the present resolution, her delegation would reiterate its commitment to
multilateralism as a legitimate instrument for the settling of disputes and a way to promote cooperation and
understanding between peoples. Indeed, she concluded, the embargo was “no more than an example of obsolete
policies which have no place in today’s world.” MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran), speaking for the Non-Aligned
Movement, recalled that the delegation, at its most recent Summit, held in Tehran, had reiterated its call to the
United States to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba, a measure which was
causing huge material and economic damage to the people of that island nation. Iran was concerned about the
widening of the extraterritorial nature of the embargo and rejected the reinforcement of the measures adopted by the
United States. The embargo had caused and would continue to cause a high degree of adverse impact on the wellbeing of the people of Cuba. The direct and indirect damage was enormous. The embargo affected all crucial sectors
of the economy, including those most vital for the well being of the people there, such as public health, nutrition and
agriculture, as well as banking, trade, investment and tourism. He said that the Movement saluted the Cuban people
for what they had achieved so far, including significant progress in such areas as education and health care, despite
the huge difficulties. Yet, the embargo continued to impede socio-economic advances and created unnecessary
economic hardship. The embargo denied Cuba access to markets, development aid from international financial
institutions and technology transfers, which were all important for the development of Cuba. The United States had
in the past claimed that it would reach out to the Cuban people but those words had regrettably not been translated
into action. LUIS-ALFONSO DE ALBA (Mexico), joining with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States, said that today’s meeting once again demonstrated the international community’s “overwhelming” opposition
to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba. Mexico once again
expressed its opposition to the measure, and reiterated its rejection of the use of coercive actions, which ran contrary
to the principles of the United Nations Charter, produced severe humanitarian impacts and which were a rejection of
diplomacy and dialogue as a way to resolve disputes between States. There were many harmful effects of the
embargo in sensitive sectors, which had a direct impact on the citizens of Cuba as well as a negative effect on third
countries. Indeed, the international community must not forget that political, economic or military sanctions
imposed on States could only emanate from the United Nations Security Council or the General Assembly.
Therefore, Mexico had supported all measures against the embargo in a number of forums, and would continue to
provide its support for the inclusion of Cuba in global economic dialogue. Dialogue and negotiation continued to be
the ideal way to resolve disputes and ensure peaceful cooperation between States, he stressed. Mexico’s proximity to
Cuba and its relationship with that country suggested the urgent need for the embargo to come to an end; Mexico
would therefore vote in favour of the resolution currently before the Assembly, he said. MANJEEV SINGH PURI (
India) said the Secretary-General’s report was illustrative of the detrimental impact the embargo had had on
international efforts to undertake socio-economic advancement in Cuba. The United Nations Resident Coordinator
in Havana had noted the high cost of the embargo and its negative impact on development and humanitarian
cooperation implemented by the United Nations system. There was, however, huge potential for strengthening
economic and commercial ties between Cuba and the United States, especially in tourism. Taking advantage of
limited openings under its Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, the United States had
become the largest exporter of agricultural products to Cuba, he noted. America’s Congressional efforts to relax or
lift the embargo had lent further credence to the annual United Nations resolution calling for the full lifting of the
measure. People-to-people contacts between the two nations held immense possibilities for fostering better
understanding. The steps taken by the United States in January 2011 to reduce restrictions on travel and remittances
to Cuba were positive developments but “far from making a fundamental change” in the complex framework of laws
and regulations, which were part of the embargo against Cuba, he added. IDRIS HASSAN ( Sudan) joined, at the
outset, with the positions put forward by the Group of 77 developing countries and China, the Non-Aligned
Movement, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation and the African Group of States. He extended his country’s
solidarity with the people of Cuba, and condemned the unilateral coercive embargo imposed by the United States
against that country, which was a “flagrant violation” of the human rights of Cubans as well as international law.
The continuation of that embargo required all Member States to exert efforts on the United States administration, as
the embargo threatened the dignity and economic progress of a United Nations Member State. Sudan had lost
precious resources as a result of similar measures imposed by the United States; he went on, calling on Member
States to apply ameliorative actions, and to accelerate reform of the Security Council. Indeed, it should not be
possible for one country to have the right of the veto and to threaten international peace and security for all. ed on
the United States to immediately lift the embargos on Cuba, Sudan and all other countries. That “aggression” was a
crime and it had to be put to an end, he stressed, as it alienated developing countries and hindered them from
achieving the Millennium Development Goal targets and sustainable development. VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian
Federation) expressed disagreement with and rejection of the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed
on Cuba by the United States. The position of the Russian Government on that matter was well known and had not
changed. It condemned such a measure by the United States, which was an “outdated relic of the Cold War era”. It
not only had hindered Cuba’s development model but had resulted in the worsening of the living conditions of the
Cuban people. The United States had eased restrictions, for instance, allowing American citizens to visit family
members and relatives in Cuba, he noted. The easing of those restrictions must be replicated in other areas as well.
Guided by non-discrimination and other principles, the Russian Federation called for an early repeal of the embargo
and urged the United States to reduce its confrontational approach. MEUTYA VIADA HAFID ( Indonesia) said that
the Assembly was convening once again to consider the 51 year-old unilateral policy banning economic,
commercial and financial activity with Cuba. Imposed during the Cold War, that embargo had cost the people of
Cuba dearly and impacted the economic and commercial relations of third countries. Further, the sanctions exceeded
the jurisdiction of national legislation and encroached on the sovereignty of other States that dealt with Cuba. Times
had changed since 1961, she said; globalization had created conditions for true global solidarity and partnership
among the community of nations. The continued imposition of the embargo against Cuba violated the principles of
the sovereign equality of States, and of non-intervention and non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs, she
said, and clearly did not conform to the United Nations Charter. It created an unwanted standoff instead of dialogue
to normalize relations, with both political complications, and economic, commercial and financial hardships that
were unjustifiable on humanitarian grounds. She urged renunciation of extraterritorial laws and measures that
affected the sovereignty of other States, the lawful interests of their subjects, or of other persons under their
jurisdiction, and freedom of trade and navigation. Sed for the immediate cessation of the embargo. JULIO
ESCALONA OJEDA ( Venezuela) recalled that, in October 2011, the Assembly had approved – for the twentieth
time - a resolution against the unilateral embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba. In that historic vote,
186 countries had expressed their support for the Cuban people, while only two countries had opposed it. Venezuela
had always supported such resolutions and had repeatedly denounced the “brutal” embargo. It also stressed its
rejection of all unilateral measures which had extraterritorial effects, which contravened the principles of the United
Nations Charter and violated principles of free navigation, among other laws. Indeed, the “Helms-Burton Act” and
similar laws were an affront to people all over the world. The Act undermined the human rights of the Cuban people
- a “despicable policy” that punished the Cuban population with the aim of bringing about a change in leadership in
Cuba. “[They] will not achieve this”, he stressed of those measures. While the embargo was an expression of a
“barbarous” policy the Cuban people had nevertheless overcome that unjust practice in a “stoic and heroic” way,
moving forward with the principle of solidarity even beyond their own borders. The “advocates of imperialism”
maintained that Cuba was a threat to the region, which was a “massive lie”. Cuba had, on the contrary, been an
element of support and hope in the area of solidarity with States, contributing to the social well being of many other
countries. United States President Barack Obama had managed to connect with the majority feeling of the Latin
American population living in the United States, and he should continue by finally ending the longstanding
embargo. If the new United States Government moved forward in that regard, President Obama would be “acting on
the right side of history”, he stressed in that respect. WANG MIN ( China), said that the commercial and financial
embargo against Cuba imposed by the United States had inflicted enormous economic and financial loses on the
island nation. Cuba’s economic losses directly resulting from the embargo had exceeded $108 billion by December
2011. Taking into account the depreciation of the United States dollar against the price of gold in the international
market, the figure would increase to $1.066 trillion. The measure had caused shortage of commodities and huge
suffering to the Cuban people. It also violated their fundamental human rights including the rights to food, health
and education as well as their right to development. That also affected interactions between other countries and
Cuba and impaired the interests and sovereignty of third countries. The embargo seriously violated the purposes and
principles of the United Nations Charter and the relevant General Assembly resolutions, and had met the firm
opposition of the vast majority of Member States. “T of the international community is getting louder and louder”,
he said, demanding that the United States Government change its policy towards Cuba. China and Cuba had
maintained normal economic, trade and personnel exchanges. The friendly and mutually-beneficial cooperation in
various fields between two countries had been growing. China hoped that the relationship between the United States
and Cuba would improve so as to promote the stability and development in Latin America and the Caribbean region.
MOOTAZ AHMADEIN KHALIL (Egypt), aligning with the statements delivered on behalf of the Group of 77
developing countries and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, recalled that a little more than 50 years ago, an unjust and unjustifiable unilateral embargo had been
imposed by the United States against Cuba. Although the world had profoundly changed since, the “bloqueo” had
persisted, in total violation of multilateralism, the norms of international law, and the principles of the Charter and
was “an anachronism from a bygone era”. He said the embargo against Cuba was the longest and toughest system of
sanctions ever applied against any country in modern history and must be lifted. Last year, 186 countries had voted
in favour of General Assembly resolution 66/6 – the twentieth resolution adopted on the issue. Lifting the embargo
was not only the Cuban people’s plea, but was also the request of the overwhelming majority of Member States. He
praised the Cuban people for their achievements under difficult circumstances, noting that despite the economic and
social hardship caused by the embargo, they had made significant progress in many areas, including education,
health care and gender equality. At a time when peoples in his region were bravely fighting for freedom and justice,
and some of them, like in his country, were establishing the foundations of a genuine democracy, it was troubling
that the United States continued to adopt coercive measures to prevent a neighbouring nation from freely deciding
its own political and economic system. Stressing that cooperation and engagement were more effective than
isolation and estrangement, he said it was high time for the embargo to end. The re-election of President Obama last
week offered the American administration a fresh opportunity to rectify the historic injustice inflicted on Cuba, he
said, expressing hope that the opportunity to do so would not be missed. DIEGO MOREJÓN ( Ecuador) said that in
an expression of solidarity, his Government had provided humanitarian aid to the victims and countries in need
following the recent hurricane. Expressing concern about the United States’ Helms-Burton Act and its
extraterritorial effects, Ecuador wished that the 21 resolutions on the Cuban blockade would finally be implemented
in their entirety. A clause in Ecuador’s Constitution condemned interventions in internal affairs. The current text
before the Assembly clearly condemned violations of free trade and navigation, which were enshrined in the United
Nations Charter and international law. It was unacceptable to see the rising figures for the cost of the embargo in
development. The blockade limited the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and other internationally
agreed targets. Aligning with the regional groups that had spoken thus far, Ecuador called for the repudiation and
full lifting of the “infamous and shameful” blockade. SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ ( Bolivia) said that
the report of the Secretary-General highlighted, once again, the global rejection of the economic and financial
embargo which had been imposed “in an arbitrary and unilateral way” against Cuba by the United States
Government. Bolivia firmly rejected the use of unilateral measures by any State seeking to impose embargoes that
had humanitarian impacts. “This blockade is unjust. It’s illegal. It’s extra-territorial”, he stressed, adding that it
violated the principles of the United Nations Charter. Further, the embargo contravened the rights of the Cuban
people to self-determination and development, among others. “The United States is not listening to the global appeal
to put an end to this injustice”, he continued. Such an attitude was one which represented “genocide’. Bolivia
condemned the coercive nature of the embargo, which also affected other countries around the world. It also
commended the courage of the revolutionary people of Cuba, which despite the effects of the embargo was moving
forward, and recognized the efforts of the Cuban people to cooperate with Bolivia and other countries. Indeed, while
some countries sent armies and soldiers with great weapons, Cuba sent “armies” of doctors and teachers to the most
needed areas of Latin America. Cuba proclaimed solidarity, life, dignity and human value, he said, adding that, if the
United States in fact defended equality and freedom, its President should immediately lift the “inhuman” embargo
against that country. LE HOAI TRUNG ( Viet Nam) noted that while 20 annual Assembly resolutions had called for
an end to the blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba, the measure remained in place and continued to
enforce severe economic and financial restrictions on Cuba. The impact on Cuban lives and development caused by
the embargo exceeded 1 trillion dollars, he said, adding that the majority of the international community opposed it
on the grounds that it contravened the fundamental norms of international law, international humanitarian law and
the fundamental principles and purposes of the Charter, especially those of sovereign equality, non-interference and
self-determination. He supported the outcome of the Sixteenth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, which had
reiterated the need to end the embargo. He also stressed his support for the statement by the “G-77” Ministers of
Foreign Affairs at their 36th Annual Meeting this year, which had rejected all forms of coercive economic measures,
including unilateral sanctions, against developing countries and called for their urgent elimination to ensure that the
principles of the United Nations Charter were not undermined and that freedom of trade and investment was
protected. He added that he would vote in favour of the resolution. BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA, Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, referred to a 1960 quote by then-Under-Secretary of State of the United States, Lester
D. Mallory, who had written that the commercial, economic and financial embargo against Cuba was intended “to
cause disenchantment and disaffection […] to weaken the economic life of Cuba […] to decrease monetary and real
wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of Government.” That had been the vision that embodied
the inhumane, failed and anachronistic policy of eleven successive United States Governments, he added. In 2008,
then presidential candidate Barack Obama had electrified the American people, and after being elected, had
announced “a new beginning with Cuba”. However, the reality of the past four years had been characterized by a
persistent tightening of the blockade, particularly its extra-territorial dimensions, despite the fact that the General
Assembly had approved, by a consistent and overwhelming majority, 20 consecutive resolutions calling for an end
to the policy. “Keeping this policy in force is not in the national interest of the United States”, he said. Quite the
contrary, it harmed the interest of that country’s citizens and companies, especially in times of economic crisis and
high unemployment. The blockade also harmed the legitimate interests of and discriminated against the Cuban
emigration that had settled in the United States, which overwhelmingly favoured the normalization of relations with
its home country. Moreover, there was no legitimate or moral reason to maintain the blockade, which was “anchored
in the Cold War”. Indeed, it “is just a weapon in the hands of an ever more exiguous, isolated, violent and arrogant
minority”, he said. He went on to describe some of the fines and repercussions imposed against various parties who
had allegedly violated the blockade, as well as the human damage caused by it, which was “huge and impossible to
calculate”. It caused hardships, shortages and difficulties that affected every family, every boy and girl, every man
and women, as well as those with disabilities, senior citizens and the ill. In that regard, he told the story of several
hospitals that were unable to treat patients due to a lack of the appropriate medicines, and of children who suffered
such ills as the loss of an eye due to retinal cancer because of the lack of appropriate therapies. Given its express
purpose and direct effects, the blockade against Cuba qualified as an “act of genocide” according to
Article 2(b) of the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, he
stressed, adding that it was a “mass, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an
entire people.” As was stated in the Secretary-General’s report, the economic damage accumulated over more
than 50 years, until 2011, amounted to one trillion six billion dollars. “Any sensible person could figure out the
living standards and development levels that we could have achieved if we had had those
resources available”, he added, calling the blockade one of the main causes of Cuba’s economic problems and
the major obstacle to its economic and social development. It was an act of aggression - a permanent threat to the
stability of a country – and constituted a gross violation of the rules that governed international trade, freedom of
navigation and the sovereign rights of States. “President Obama has the opportunity to start a new policy towards
Cuba”, he said. It would be a difficult task and he might face serious obstacles, but there was no doubt that it would
constitute a “historical legacy”. Today Cuba was submitting to the United States Government a draft agenda for
bilateral dialogue aimed at moving towards the normalization of relations, including such fundamental topics as the
lifting of the blockade, Cuba’s exclusion from the “arbitrary and illegal” list of terrorism-sponsoring countries, and
return of the territory occupied by the Guantanamo Naval base, and others. An essential part of that agenda was the
release of the five Cuban anti-terrorists who remained imprisoned or retained in the United States, he added. Action
on Draft Taking the floor ahead of action on the draft resolution, the representative of the United States said that his
country, like others, determined the conduct of its economic relationships with other States based on its best interest.
Regarding Cuba, the priority of President Obama’s Administration was to empower Cubans to determine their own
future. Connections must be built between the American and Cuban people, and those links should help to provide
Cubans with the tools necessary to move forward. In that regard, the hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans
who had sent remittances and travelled to the island since the start of the Obama Administration were a central part
of the strategy to help Cubans have the opportunities that they deserved. Such actions provided alternative sources
of information and strengthened civil society, he stressed. In contrast, the resolution presented by Cuba today sought
to “identify an external scapegoat” for the country’s economic problems, where in fact, they were caused by the
Cuban Government’s policies over the last half a century. Indeed, he went on, Cuba still had one of the most
restrictive economic systems in the world. Irrespective of United States policy, it was “unrealistic” to expect Cuba to
thrive unless it opened its monopolies, respected international property rights and allowed unfettered access to the
Internet, among other things. He stressed that the United States was in fact a “deep and abiding friend” to the Cuban
people; by its own account it was one of Cuba’s principal trading partners, and it had authorized an estimated $1.2
billion in humanitarian assistance in 2011, among other forms of assistance. The country remained committed to the
welfare of the Cuban people despite such Cuban policies as those that allowed for the detention of Alan Gross, who
had been sentenced to 15 years in prison in Cuba for facilitating Internet access for Cuba’s Jewish population. In
addition, the Assembly could not ignore the “ease and frequency” with which Cuba inflicted politically motivated
detentions, impeded access to journalism and restricted similar freedoms. The resolution before the Assembly today
only served to distract from the real problems facing the Cuban people, he stressed, adding that the United States
would therefore vote against it. Next, the delegate of Nicaragua condemned the United States’ embargo for its
negative consequences it had inflicted on the Cuban children, women and men. For the twenty-first time, the
General Assembly, which represented the Governments of the world, was speaking out for the
Cuban people in a unanimous way, calling for the ending of blockage. In that vein, her delegation
would vote in favour of the resolution and for the generous nation of Cuba, which supported its people, the sick or
elderly, through its social programmes. Nicaragua and Cuba had commenced cooperation, including technological
assistance, to lift people out of poverty. Cuba was making significant contributions to humanity. The Assembly had
just heard the representative of the United States try to justify Washington’s embargo, but such a measure was
unjustifiable. In any case, the Cuban people were determined and would never bend; they were known for their
nobility in the Latin American and Caribbean region. The United States had defied the General Assembly
by continuing the criminal blockade. It was now high time to rectify the violations by the United States of
international law and the United Nations Charter. “The United States should not continue to be
deaf” to the international community’s call. The embargo remained an obstacle to Cuba’s social and
economic development. She also urged the United States to release the “five Cuban heroes” who had been detained.
Any coercive measures ran counter to multilateralism. The United States’ “imperialistic policy”
was unacceptable under Latin American norms, which valued good neighbourliness.
UN relations key to solve every impact – coop more effective than unilateral attempts to
solve
Bellamy, Morrison, and Shays ’06 in an interview with the Yale Journal of International Affairs — Carol
Bellamy served as Executive Director ¶ of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) from 1995 to 2005, ¶ and is
currently the President and CEO of the School for International ¶ Training in BraĴ leboro, Vermont. David Morrison
is currently the Director ¶ of Communications for the United Nations Development Programme ¶ (UNDP). U.S.
Representative Christopher Shays has served as a Republican ¶ congressman representing the fourth district of
Connecticut since 1974. ¶ He is the Vice-Chair of the House CommiĴ ee on Government Reform. (“The U.S.
Relationship with the United Nations,” Yale Journal of International Affairs, 2006, http://yalejournal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/061207bellamy-morrison-shays.pdf, Accessed: 6/28/13, sh)
Ultimately, if the United States and the UN both look at themselves in the mirror, areas such as security, health,
and the environment provide a great deal of room for them to work together to achieve common goals.
Building a safer and more secure world is one common goal, and I hope both the U.S. and the UN will work
together to institutionalize the international fight on terrorism, build a multilateral nuclear nonproliferation effort, and uphold the Geneva Conventions. The Millennium Development Goals provide
another area where there ought to be a common agenda. Reducing poverty; fighting the challenges of
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; and improving the environment are other issues where there is
room for cooperation. I don’t come to this discussion with rose-colored glasses, but I believe there are
commonalities that supersede the differences.
David Morrison: The current relationship between the United States and the UN is stronger than most people think
The UN-U.S. relationship is critical. It is critical for the United States as a global power with global interests
because a productive relationship with the United Nations can allow the United States to pursue those
interests more effectively than it could do acting on its own. And the relationship is certainly critical from the
UN’s point of view because the United States is the organization’s largest shareholder. It is the only superpower in
the world and this means it matters within the UN. So getting the relationship right is vital.
Nuclear proliferation causes extinction
Viegas 9 - Jennifer Viegas, one of Discovery New’s first reporters, has covered a great variety of topics, an author of many books [“Human
Extinction: How Could It Happen?” Discovery News, 11/11/09, http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/human-extinction-doomsday.htm,
accessed: 7/2/13, JK]
While any number and combination of doom-and-gloom happenings could destroy the human race, the researchers outlined four, more general
In this case, that
defined scenario is human extinction. "The types were non-war human-caused -- whether accidental or intended or purposeful,
natural-viral, natural-environmental, and finally nuclear or near nuclear war/engagement between any two nations,"
Lopes said. Should a launch of nuclear weapons, an outbreak of disease, an unforeseen side effect of technical and medical
advancements, or unusual environmental changes occur, the researchers believe "serious consideration throughout
the globe" is warranted. Side effects of technology and environmental changes "are slow to
present themselves, and that's what makes those signposts the most dangerous, in my opinion," Lopes said.
types of events that may also serve as "signposts," or events that may signal the unfolding of a defined scenario.
"Unfortunately, as we've seen with the impassioned discussion regarding global warming, not everyone can agree on what it is they are seeing or
what the data reveal, and that's where a great deal of danger lies."
US-UN relations advantage - Impacts
Without UN support, nuclear proliferation would follow
Zedillo 5 - Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico [“A World Without the UN?”
Forbes, 3/28/05, http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0328/041.html, accessed: 6/27/13, JK]
Not so fast! The first question that must be posed is whether a system of collective responsibility to pursue peace and security still makes equal
sense for the strong and the weak countries of the world. I believe it does. The weak want to know that if they're threatened by another country
the international community will not be indifferent. The powerful know that even if they had the resources to wage war successfully against any
potential aggressor state, it would be better to spare those resources if their security and national interest could be indubitably protected by other
means. They also know that today's security threats are very different from traditional intercountry conflicts. Terrorists
and other
transnational criminals, along with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, constitute
perils that no country, irrespective of its economic or military might, can defeat alone.
Cooperative and collective action is required.
UN relations are key to keeping world peace
IHEU 8 - International Humanist and Ethical Union, world union in which human rights are respected and everyone can live life of dignity
[“Does the UN have the power to do its job?” http://iheu.org/content/does-un-have-power-do-its-job, accessed: 6/27/13, JK]
In a 2007 poll, two
out of three Americans were disappointed at UN failures. Yet the same proportion
wants the UN to play a strong role in settling global problems. The UN was designed with a Secretariat which was
given the power to implement policies and actions designed by the member states. The UN was never intended as a world government and was
never given the power and the funding to achieve goals not fully agreed upon. The strongest political body, the Security Council, has 15 members
with five major countries holding veto power. Even the threat of a veto determines what comes up before the Council. The Secretary General is
far more secretary than general. If the major powers cannot agree on an action, it will not happen. Much of the UN's work is not controversial.
Over 80% is humanitarian and highly effective given the small budget allocated for it. The
UN is the first recourse for aiding
both natural and manmade disasters. Essentials for survival come quickly--bags of food, crates of
medicine, blankets and tents. Rescue workers under the blue flag appear in hours. Through its many agencies, the UN promotes
clean water, safe schools, vaccination and education campaigns. The UN is a leader in promoting security, education,
and empowerment of women. The greatly feared worldwide pandemic, triggered by avian flu, has so far been avoided, thanks to
international cooperation carried out through the UN. Disappointment with the UN springs primarily from the UN's limited ability to control
human rights abuses, and particularly the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. The Rwanda genocide happened because the US, under President
Clinton, actively lobbied against sending more peacekeepers. The ongoing genocide in Darfur continues in part because China protects Sudan
from excessive attention in the Security Council. The Sudanese government uses the currency it earns from selling oil to China, to buy weapons
from China. Yet even in the mine-strewn and politically explosive area of peacekeeping the
UN has negotiated 172 peaceful
settlements of regional conflicts. The UN peacekeepers can keep a peace process going, but only when there is a process to keep. The major
powers must agree to effectively intervene for the UN to carry out its function. When governments agree the UN can intervene with speed and
effectiveness. In some cases, as in Haiti, the UN has a strong mandate to use force to protect civilians. In the war in Lebanon between Hezbollah
and Israel, when tensions threatened to ignite the entire Middle East, the participants and the governments wanted a ceasefire. The UN was there,
ready and able to call a halt using peacekeepers. They stopped what could have been a spreading conflagration. There are currently 16
peacekeeping operations. The need for peacekeepers has grown sharply from 10,000 personnel in 1999, to 85,000 in 2007. Amazingly, the UN
spends less on peacekeeping worldwide, than New York City spends on the annual budget of the Police Department. The UN is developing a
Peace-building Commission to prevent countries at risk from falling into or returning to internal conflict. The
UN is desperately
needed. Problems are now global, crossing borders without passports. Climate change, resistance to
international terrorism, weapons proliferation, epidemics spread by world travel, all demand cooperation. The
participation of the world's largest economy, the US, is essential . It is tragic that the US has pursued a mostly unilateral approach,
rejecting the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and payment of its arrears in dues to the UN.
US-UN relations adv - Internal Links
The embargo tanks UN relations – recent resolution proves
Villarreal 12 – Ryan Villarreal, reporter on foreign affairs with a focus on Latin America. He also covers human
rights and environmental issues worldwide. (“UN Calls For End To US Embargo of Cuba”, International Business
Times, November 14, 2012, http://www.ibtimes.com/un-calls-end-us-embargo-cuba-880522, accessed: 7/2/13, LR)
The United Nations has called for an end to the U.S. embargo of Cuba that has been in place for over half a
century.
For the 21st consecutive year, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution opposing the embargo
after 188 member states voted in favor of it.
There were three votes against it from the U.S., Israel and Palau, while two others, the Marshall Islands and the
Federated States of Micronesia, abstained.
“The United States embargo continues to severely affect the day-to-day welfare of Cuban citizens,” read a
June 2012 statement from the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean or CEPAL.
CEPAL said that the embargo has driven up medical, agricultural and manufacturing costs, as well
as for infrastructure projects.
Embargo destroys UN relations – recent vote proves
Edmonds 12 – Kevin Edmonds, writer for the NACLA, focusing on the Caribbean. (“Despite Global Opposition,
United States Votes to Continue Cuban Embargo”, North American Congress on Latin America, November 15,
2012, https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/15/despite-global-opposition-united-states-votes-continue-cuban-embargo,
accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
In a near unanimous vote at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, the vast majority of the
world voted to put an end the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. Aside from the moral argument,
the driving principles behind the vote to end the embargo were those regarding the sovereign equality of
states, non-intervention in internal affairs, and the freedom of international trade and navigation.
In total, 188 countries voted in favor of the resolution, with the U.S., Israel, and Palau voting against it, and
the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia abstaining. It was the twenty first consecutive
year that the resolution passed by an overwhelming majority in the U.N. The last time the United States
had normal relations with Cuba, the Andy Griffith Show was the most popular show on TV, African Americans
couldn’t vote, McDonalds only had 228 locations, and Barack Obama would not be born for another year. It was
indeed a different world.
It was thought that President Obama knew this as well when he made headlines in 2009 by stating that he sought “a
new beginning” with Cuba, as the outdated and damaging policy was more ideological than practical, Tuesday’s
vote showed that when it came to the embargo, nothing has changed.
Lifting Embargo Key to Improving US-UN involvement
RIA Novosti 12 RIA Novosti (in Russian: РИА Новости) or sometimes shortly RIA (Russian: РИА) is one of
the largest news agencies in Russia.[1] RIA Novosti is headquartered in Moscow and operates about 80 bureaus
internationally.
The agency publishes news and analysis of social-political, economic, scientific and financial subjects
(“Condemned…again: 'Genocidal' US embargo on Cuba slammed by UN for 21st year,” RIA Novosti, November
14, 2012, http://rt.com/news/cuba-embargo-un-vote-635/, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
The UN has urged the US to lift the 52-year trade embargo with Cuba in an almost-unanimous vote. Cuba likened
the blockade to “genocide” and said it was disappointed that Obama had not taken measures to lift the disputed
embargo.
Of the 193 members of the UN assembly, 188 voted to abolish what is widely perceived as an illegal
blockade. The only two nations that got behind the US were Israel and the Pacific nation of Palau, while two
countries abstained from the vote. T his is the 21st year running that the UN has decried the American
economic sanctions against the island nation. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez addressed the assembly,
voicing Cuban disappointment that despite Obama’s pledge to open a new chapter in Cuban-American relations on
assuming office four years ago, no steps had been taken the lift the crippling embargo. "The reality is that the last
four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of …the embargo," he said. The Cuban government
has calculated that since the blockade was enforced in 1960 the total financial damage to Cuba’s economy is around
US$3 trillion. Rodriguez qualified the maintenance of the embargo as tantamount to “genocide” and a
“massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights” of the people of Cuba. He criticized
America for what ed a “costly double standard” for wasting “hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxes
that are paid by US citizens in the useless and illegal subversion against Cuba.” US president Barack Obama has
taken measures to facilitate US travel to the island nation, but has thus far refrained from taking any further steps to
lift the embargo. The US justifies its stance by saying it is waiting for signs of changes in Cuba’s political regime
and improvements in the island state’s human rights record. The embargo was originally introduced with a view to
crippling Cuba’s communist regime, which took power in the country following the 1959 revolution headed by Fidel
Castro. ‘A loyal friend’? In fact, US envoy at the UN assembly, Ronald D. Godard argued the embargo is “one of
the tools in our overall efforts to encourage respect for the human rights and basic freedoms to which the United
Nations itself is committed.” Cuba’s resolution seeks to identify an external scapegoat for the island’s
economic problems when they are principally caused by the economic policies that Cuban government has
pursued for the past half century,” Godard said. He stressed that the US was a “loyal friend” to Cuba and it is
working to “empower Cubans who wish to determine their own future.” Citing the case of Alan Gross, a US citizen
who was arrested in Cuba and currently serving a 15-year sentence for setting up internet networks on the island,
Godard said his imprisonment had halted diplomatic proceedings with Cuba. Minister Rodriguez’s speech was
greeted by thunderous applause, while Godard’s was met with comparative silence at the assembly vote.
Embargo kills UN relations – international law violation: recent vote proves
Reuters 12—Thomas Reuters, Chicago Tribune writer (“For 21st time, UN urges end to embargo on Cuba”,
Chicago Tribune, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-13/business/chi-for-21st-time-un-urges-us-to-endembargo-on-cuba-20121113_1_trade-embargo-cuban-people-change-cuba-policy, 11/13/12, Accessed 7/2/13, jtc)
Repeating an annual ritual, the U.N. General Assembly called on Tuesday for the United States to lift its trade
embargo against Cuba, whose foreign minister said the blockade against the communist-run island was
tantamount to "genocide." For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188
nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution, a result virtually
unchanged from last year. Israel, heavily dependent on U.S. backing in the Middle East, and the tiny Pacific state of
Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States in opposing the non-binding resolution in the
193-nation assembly. The Pacific states of the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. President Barack Obama
further loosened curbs last year on U.S. travel and remittances to Cuba. He had said he was ready to change Cuba
policy but was still waiting for signals from Havana, such as the release of political prisoners and guarantees of
basic human rights. But Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo, and the imprisonment of a U.S.
contractor in Cuba has halted the thaw in Cuban-U.S. relations. Havana's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the
assembly that Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change.
But he said the result had been disappointing. "The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the
persistent tightening of -- the embargo," he said. 'EXTERNAL SCAPEGOAT' Rodriguez said the
"extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other countries
to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S.
interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding
that the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and
political freedoms and comply with international human rights standards. " There is no legitimate or moral reason
to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said. He said it qualified as a "act of
genocide" against Cuba and was a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an
entire people."
Lifting embargo key to UN relations – international hatred of the embargo
Betancourt 13 [Roger R. Betancourt, Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Maryland,
received a B.A. in
Economics from Georgetown University (Washington DC) and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin (Madison), “Should the
US Lift the Embargo?” Development Research Center, 4/13, http://devresearchcenter.org/2013/04/08/should-the-us-lift-the-embargo-by-rogerbetancourt/, accessed: 6/27/13, JK]
This is even more applicable in the case of the US, which has more alternatives due to its higher level of wealth. With respect to restrictions
motivated by national security, selective restrictions that apply to all countries, including China, would be more than sufficient to satisfy these
lifting of these restrictions, the US would
benefit more in terms of improving its international relations with almost every other country in the
world. They vote against the US embargo every year at the UN.
objectives. While Cuba would benefit more economically than the
US from the
US isolated in international community – sole supporter of the embargo
Piccone 09 – Ted Piccone, senior director of foreign policy at Brookings Institution, served on the State
Department, National Security Council and Pentagon (“The United Nations Denounces the US Embargo on
Cuba…Again”, Brookings, 10/27/09, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2009/10/27-cuba-un-votepiccone, Accessed 6/28/13, AM)
For the 18th year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly unequivocally calls for the end of "the
economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba." And once
again, the United States finds itself completely isolated from even its closest friends in the international
community.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. President Obama is committed to a new course of multilateral engagement in
which the United States reassumes its mantle of responsible global citizen. And in many ways, from the formal
creation of the G-20 to re-joining the UN Human Rights Council, the administration has not just talked the talk, but
walked the walk, earning him a rather premature though welcomed Nobel Peace Prize.
But when it comes to Cuba, it’s back to the same old story: all politics is local, in this case, Miami, Florida. Earlier
this year, there was some justified hope that, after eight years of an increasingly onerous set of laws and regulations
restricting trade, travel and remittances between the United States and Cuba, President Obama would fulfill his
promise to try a new path of pragmatic but principled engagement. And winning Florida last November – despite
losing the majority of Cuban American votes in Miami – should have given the White House some elbow room to
take some bold actions. But even supporters are disappointed by the excessively cautious steps this administration
has taken so far to extend that "unclenched fist" to our closest island neighbor.
If anything, the president seems to have limited his options by locking himself in to a policy of mutual reciprocity
that lets Havana determine the pace of progress in unfreezing 50 years of icy relations. On more than one occasion,
the president has reiterated his view that, in return for letting Cuban-American families travel and send remittances
to their loved ones on the island, the Castro regime must take the next step toward better relations. He reportedly
asked his Spanish counterpart, Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, to tell President Raul Castro to get moving on
democratic reforms. According to an unnamed U.S. official quoted in El Pais, Obama said, "We're taking steps, but
if they don't take steps too, it's going to be very hard for us to continue." Of course, the fact that financial donations
from pro-embargo Cuban Americans to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which happens to be led by
pro-embargo Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), have jumped six-fold since 2006 also may have
something to do with this approach. It at least seems to reaffirm another old cliché: money talks.
While a tit-for-tat approach may assuage the shrinking number of hard-liners in Miami, it is unlikely to have any
effect on the intended audience – the Cuban regime, now ruled by Fidel Castro’s "younger" brother (78 years old)
and a cohort of aged revolutionaries. Cuba has made it very clear that it is prepared to sit down and talk with the
United States in a spirit of mutual respect, i.e., accepting the regime as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.
Until then, it will happily promote the image of David vs. Goliath on the world stage. It is just too potent and too
successful a narrative in winning friends for Havana to abandon, even more so now that its economy is in a
shambles and it needs all the friends it can get.
Similarly, the modest steps the administration has taken so far is unlikely to get much mileage with the other group
one would want to influence – the European and other allies who are rooting for a more multilateral, cooperative and
pragmatic U.S. policy on this and a host of other issues. Washington will have to do much more to begin turning the
tide of international public opinion against the embargo. This does not mean that the United States should abandon
its defense of human rights for all Cubans. But it might want to change its tactics. Spain is touting its policy of quiet
diplomacy as a better model for the European Union, which it chairs in 2010, and has a few, albeit meager
concessions by Havana to back up its argument. We, after 50 years of attempting to punish Cuba for its bad
behavior, have none.
So a policy designed to isolate a small, poor Caribbean island has come around full circle to isolate the superpower
instead. The lopsided UN vote reminds us yet again that it’s time for a change. If President Obama wants
to show the world he is prepared to lead in a new direction, there are a multitude of steps he can take to ease the
embargo and improve bilateral relations without waiting for Congress to act. These include expanding licenses for
people-to-people travel for educational, cultural and humanitarian purposes; allowing more Cubans to travel to the
United States; easing the licensing of tradable medicines developed in Cuba; reviewing whether Cuba should remain
on the list of state sponsors of terrorism; and pursuing agreements on disaster relief and marine conservation. But
something tells me that at next year’s UN vote, very little will have changed, in Havana or in Washington.
US-UN relations adv – relations low now
UN relations low now – contentious political issues
Bellamy, Morrison, and Shays ’06 in an interview with the Yale Journal of International Affairs — Carol
Bellamy served as Executive Director ¶ of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) from 1995 to 2005, ¶ and is
currently the President and CEO of the School for International ¶ Training in BraĴ leboro, Vermont. David Morrison
is currently the Director ¶ of Communications for the United Nations Development Programme ¶ (UNDP). U.S.
Representative Christopher Shays has served as a Republican ¶ congressman representing the fourth district of
Connecticut since 1974. ¶ He is the Vice-Chair of the House CommiĴ ee on Government Reform. (“The U.S.
Relationship with the United Nations,” Yale Journal of International Affairs, 2006, http://yalejournal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/061207bellamy-morrison-shays.pdf, Accessed: 6/28/13, sh)
The relationship between the United States and the UN has deteriorated in the last decade. The
relationship is especially strained because in the United States the public focus is almost entirely on the
political half of the UN organization, where many of the more contentious issues arise. It is important to
take into consideration the broader dimensions of the United Nations, which range from confronting the various
health emergencies of the moment to addressing problems in the environment and global poverty.
Soft Power Adv – Embargo hurts soft power
Note: a lot of the UN advantage stuff will be relevant here, so you could probably get cards from that file.
The embargo fails – counterproductive and bad for US image
Edmonds 12 – Kevin Edmonds, writer for the NACLA, focusing on the Caribbean. (“Despite
Global Opposition, United States Votes to Continue Cuban Embargo”, North American Congress on Latin America,
November 15, 2012, https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/15/despite-global-opposition-united-states-votes-continuecuban-embargo, accessed: 7/4/13, LR)
In many ways, the ongoing Cuban embargo is one of the most symbolic policies of U.S. imperial
control in the Americas. That said, the impact is much more than merely symbolic for the Cuban people, as
according to Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, the embargo is “an act of aggression and a
permanent danger to the stability of the nation.”
While the Cuban embargo was ultimately created to isolate Cuba economically and politically, the routine
imposition of harsher conditions has failed to bring down the Castro government. In 1992, President George
H. Bush signed the Cuban Democracy Act (also known as the Torricelli Act) into law, which forbids subsidiaries of
U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, U.S. nationals from traveling to Cuba and remittances being sent to the
country. The Cuban Democracy Act also attempts to limit the amount of interaction the international
community has with Cuba by “imposing sanctions on any country that provides assistance to Cuba, including
ending U.S. assistance for those countries and by disqualifying them from benefiting from any programme of
reduction or forgiveness of debt owed to the USA.” It was widely assumed that after the fall of the Soviet Union it
would only be a matter of time before Castro fell as well.
When that prediction didn’t materialize, President Bill Clinton signed the internationally condemned Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act in law (more commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act) in March 1996.
This act further deepened the sanctions against Cuba as it sought to “strengthen international sanctions against the
Castro government,” and to “plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected
government in Cuba.” The Helms-Burton Act allowed for any non-U.S. company that dealt with Cuba to be
subjected to legal action and that the respective company's leadership could be barred from entry into the United
States. This essentially meant that many international businesses were blackmailed to choose between operating in
Cuba or the United States—which financially speaking isn’t much of a choice in regards to market size.
Like any embargo—whether in Iran, Gaza, or Cuba—it is the regular people who suffer the most. While
there is a wide disagreement on the exact amount of harm the embargo has done to the Cuban economy, the
estimates range between one and three trillion $US. In 2008, the Indian Delegation to the United Nations stated
that “The negative impact of the embargo is pervasive in the social, economic, and environmental
dimensions of human development in Cuba, severely affecting the most vulnerable socioeconomic groups of
the Cuban population.”
Lifting the embargo solves soft power and Latin American relations
Rowen 13 – Dolores Rowen, Graduate student at the Whitehead School of Diplomacy at Seton Hall
University, focusing in International Economics/Development and Latin America and the Caribbean.
(“What about Cuba?”, Maplewood, April 19 2013, http://thealternativepress.com/articles/what-about-cuba,
Accessed: 7/4/13, EH)
In 2012, only 29 percent of Americans felt that the 52-year-old trade embargo on Cuba should remain a US policy. The majority of Americans
believe that the economic embargo should be lifted. It is even more interesting to know that many Cubans look favorably on the US and want to
see an end to this ineffective and archaic policy. The question therefore is if so many Americans and native Cubans support an end to the
embargo, why does it still exist? The answer is not far-fetched. It exists mainly because the large Cuban lobbying constituency that desires an end
to the Castro regime actively lobbies to keep such policies in place. Yet those that advocate for a continuation of this policy may not realize that
this embargo is ultimately a lost economic opportunity for the United States. Cuba has resources such as sugar, cocoa, nickel, and fertile soil – all
of which should appeal to US businesses.
For the US, this ineffective embargo has only resulted in increased tensions and anti-American sentiment in Latin
America and the Caribbean. It has failed at its primary purpose of disposing Fidel and Raul Castro and their Communist regime and of
restoring democracy to Cuba. It has, however, had a profoundly negative effect on the Cuban economy. Given the current economic and political
climate, the time for economic reform and the restoration of bilateral economic ties with Cuba is now, as it would be strategically beneficial for
both countries to end the embargo.
In the past, efforts to increase the effect of the embargo, such as the creation of the Cuban-Democracy Act (1992) and the Helms-Burton Act
(1996) have neither resulted in regime change nor economic collapse. Somehow, Cuba has endured throughout the years. But, the reality for
Cuba is that there is little to no economic growth or prosperity in the country. Cuban officials have been well aware of the fact that since the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the “special period” that there has been a need to reform Cuba’s economic policies.
However, this process has been slow, subtle, and ineffective.
In the 1990s, Cuba began to privatize small businesses. Its main focus was tourism, with the hope that this industry would revitalize its economy.
In 2007, tourism accounted for about 16.7% of overall investment in Cuba. Due to the embargo, Americans are limited in their travel to Cuba.
This is purely a lost economic opportunity for both Cuba and the US. Without tourists from the US, tourism untimely provides temporary
economic stability, but does not provide long lasting economic growth.
Cuba is a potential market for US exports and such opportunities should not be overlooked during in this present economic climate. Cuba is the
largest country in the Caribbean with a large population of about11 million. Moreover, its unused agricultural land and limited technology should
also be viewed as an opportunity for American businesses and entrepreneurs. Cuban society is highly educated and many of these individuals are
currently working in positions that cater to the tourist industry rather than in their desired professional fields.
The international community does not look favorably upon the perpetuation of this embargo. Our Latin American neighbors are
adamantly opposed to it. Normalizing relations with Cuba would probably improve our overall relations with Latin
American and Caribbean states, resulting in better relations within the Western Hemisphere, and prove to bolster the US’ “soft power”
in the region.
Lifting embargo key to preserving US image- Embargo seen as hypocritical
Pomerantz 1/1- Phyllis Pomerantz, licensed clinical social worker. She obtained her social work degree from
New York University in 1994, and has extensive experience with adolescents in a variety of settings during her
training and since obtaining her degree. Ms. Pomerantz provides individual, group and family therapy. Ms.
Pomerantz is a member of the DBT treatment team at Rathbone & Associates. (“Now’s the Time to Lift the U.S.
Embargo on Cuba”, The Globe and Mail, January 1, 2013, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-thetime-to-lift-the-us-embargo-on-cuba/article6790494/, accessed: 6/27/13, LR)
The U.S. stand on Cuba is incomprehensible and only serves to look hypocritical and arbitrary in
the eyes of a world that doesn’t understand the intricacies of American politics. Now that the
election is over, there is a window of opportunity to open up a full commercial and diplomatic relationship. Mr.
Obama should use the full extent of his executive powers to immediately relax restrictions, and Congress should
pass legislation lifting the remaining legal obstacles.
It’s time to forget about old grudges and remember that the best way to convert an enemy into a
friend is to embrace him. Instead of admiring Havana’s old cars, Americans should be selling them new ones.
Lifting the embargo makes the US more credible- International support
Crowther 09 --- Colonel Glenn A. Crowther, research professor at Strategic Studies Institute (“KISS THE EMBARGO
GOODBYE”, February 2009, SSI, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub906.pdf, accessed July 4, 2013,MY)
The United States has a motive and a history of operating against the Cuban ¶ government, and therefore against the Cuban people. The proof that
The government uses the ¶ embargo as the
only excuse for maintaining its internal security apparatus. If we were ¶ to drop the
embargo, either Cuba would have to dismantle its security apparatus, or be ¶ revealed as being
hypocritical. Either result would be good for both the United States ¶ and the Cuban
people. Dismantling the repressive security structure would provide a ¶ modicum of freedom for the Cubans. Maintaining the security
the United States is ¶ still operating against them is obvious—the embargo.
apparatus would¶ significantly delegitimize the Cuban government domestically and internationally and ¶ could only hasten the demise of the
current system.¶ Lifting
the embargo would be a strong sign to the international community that
the ¶ United States is magnanimous and inclusive. Maintaining it makes us look petty and ¶
vindictive to the rest of the world. We cannot convince anyone that Cuba is a threat to ¶ the United States, nor can we make
the case internationally that more of the same will ¶ have a positive impact. Lifting the embargo would signal that we
are ready to try ¶ something different to bring democracy to Cuba.
Lifting the embargo solves soft power- Shows leadership
Gerz-Escandon 08 – Jennifer Gerz-Escandon, independent scholar and former professor of political
science based in Atlanta (“End the US-Cuba embargo: It’s a win-win”, Christian Science Monitor,
October 9 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html, Accessed:
7/4/13, EH)
For its part, by ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security through stability in Cuba. More important, by
investing in the future prototype for emerging markets – a 42,803-square-mile green energy and technology lab called Cuba – America gains a
dedicated partner in the search for energy independence.
Finally, a key component of renewing relations is ending illicit emigration . At issue is the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, amended
in 1995. It encourages disaffected Cubans to risk their lives for the reward of an expedited path to US citizenship upon reaching American soil.
They also receive immediate access to a work permit and the ability to acquire residency in one year. A 2002 article from The Miami Herald
reported that 1 in 20 Cubans being smuggled to the shores of the United States dies in the attempt. Meanwhile, smugglers collect up to $10,000 a
person.
Retiring the "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy and normalizing immigration laws could stop the Cuban brain drain, end
charges of a US immigration double standard, and save hundreds of millions of dollars for the US taxpayers who must fund four
different agencies to implement this policy.
Supporters of the embargo say it serves as an important symbolic protest of Cuba's deplorable human rights record and its lack of political, civil,
and economic freedoms. Yet constructive engagement with the reform-ready regime of Mr. Castro – utilizing a framework based on mutual
economic interests similar to US-China relations – could give observers more cause for optimism. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's willingness to
speak openly with Newsweek/CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria last month about democratization is evidence of progress.
While phasing out the Cuban embargo won't render a quick solution to fractured US-Cuba relations or end the evaporation of esteem
the US is suffering throughout Latin America, it would mark a significant achievement of hemispheric leadership on a
divisive issue. By ending the embargo, the US may learn that under the right circumstances, the soft power of diplomacy proves more
effective in reshaping America's perception in Latin America than the hard power of economic isolation ever did.
Lifting the embargo increases our influence in the region
Grisworld 05 --- Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies (“Four Decades of Failure:
The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargoagainst-cuba, accessed July 3, 2013, MY)
Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip
Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that 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 farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs. ¶ Second, restrictions
on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private
sector, encourage Cuba’s modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the
government.¶ Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by
private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks,
not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose
banning the use of private commercial credit.¶ Finally, the
Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The
law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and
has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.¶ Lifting or
modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue
acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial
engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government
can and should continue to criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the
U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s
authority from below.¶ We should apply the president’s sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The
most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily
interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas.¶ How many decades does the U.S. government
need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
Overwhelming support for embargo repeal – retaliatory actions growing
Gordon 12 – Joy Gordon, Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, and Senior Fellow at the Global Justice
Program, MacMillan Center for Area and International Studies, Yale University. (“The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba
and the Diplomatic Challenges to Extraterritoriality”, Law Journal Library, Winter 2012,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/forwa36&div=11&g_sent=1&collection=journals, accessed:
7/2/13, LR)
Statements of condemnation
In addition to the WTO action and retaliatory legislation by Canada, Mexico, and the
European Union, U.S. embargo measures have also met broad, consistent international
condemnation. In 2009 and 2010, for example, statements of condemnation came from the XV Summit
of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Egypt in 2009," the II Africa-South America Summit (ASA) in
2009,“ the Vll Summit of the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance For the Peoples of the Americas ( ALBA) in
2009,“ the Unity Summit of 2010, consisting of the XXI Rio Group Summit and the II Summit of Latin
America and the Caribbean on Integration and Development (CALC)," and the VI Summit of Latin
America and the Caribbean and the European Union.“
UN General Assembly resolutions
It is not surprising that Cuba would have support from the devel-oping world, particularly its trading
partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. A more dramatic demonstration of the breadth of
international opposition to the legality of the U.S. embargo legislation was the series of annual votes before the UN
General Assembly, which began in 1992. After the Torricelli law was passed, Cuba introduced a resolution
before the UN General Assembly that called upon member states not to imple-ment its provisions
and expressed concern about the extraterritorial effects and their consequent violation of the
principle of equal sovereignty." The resolution passed by a vote of 59 to 3, with 71 abstentions and 46
nations not voting. International support for
Cubans resolutions has grown steadily from 1992 through the present, as states that had
abstained in one voted “yes” the next, and then continue to do so each year. While the I992 resolution had 59 votes
in favor, the next year’s resolution had 88 votes in favor, 4 opposed, and 92 abstaining or not voting. For each of the
last several years, over 180 members – out of 193 in the United Nations – have joined Cuba in condemning this
U.S. violation of international trade law. Most recently, in October 2011, 186 countries voted in support of
Cuba’s resolu-tion, two opposed it, and three abstained.
Plan popular in congress- Lobbies, Cuban-American and Republican support
Hanson and Lee ’13, Stephanie Hanson, associate director and coordinating editor of the Council on Foreign
Relations. Brianna Lee, Senior Production Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations. (“U.S.-Cuba Relations”,
Council on Foreign Relations, January 13, 2013, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113#p3, Accessed:
July 3, 2013, SD)
What is U.S. public opinion on the isolation of Cuba?¶ 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.¶ Ending the economic
embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in Congress are mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers
from Florida, including former representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently antiCastro. Still, many
favor improving relations with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking
Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said:
"We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban
regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF).
Soft power Adv – low now
US soft power low – political squabbling and fiscal policymaking hurts influence in
international organizations
Neu 2/8 - Richard Neu, senior economist at RAND Corporation (“U.S. 'Soft Power' Abroad Is Losing Its Punch”,
RAND corporation, 2/8/13, http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/02/us-soft-power-abroad-is-losing-its-punch.html,
Accessed 7/10/13)
The way America flexes it economic muscle around the world is changing dramatically—and not necessarily for the
better.
In 1997, facing a wave of sovereign debt defaults, the International Monetary Fund asked its member states to
pledge lines of credit to support Fund rescue efforts. The United States and other nations did as asked. In 2009, the
United States responded again to a call for expanded credit lines. When the Fund sought yet another
expansion of these credit lines last April, 39 countries, including China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India, and
Saudi Arabia, stepped up. Even cash-strapped Italy and Spain pledged support.
But the United States was conspicuously absent. A pledge from the United States requires congressional
authorization. In the midst of last spring's contentious debate over U.S. government deficits and debts,
support for an international body was a political nonstarter. Where the United States had
previously demonstrated international leadership, other countries—some of them America's rivals for
international influence—now make the running.
This is a small example of what may be a troubling trend: America's fiscal predicament and the seeming
inability of its political system to resolve these matters may be taking a toll on the instruments of
U.S. “soft power” and on the country's ability to shape international developments in ways that serve American
interests.
The most potent instrument of U.S. soft power is probably the simple size of the U.S. economy. As the biggest
economy in the world, America has a lot to say about how the world works. But the economics profession is
beginning to understand that high levels of public debt can slow economic growth, especially when gross general
government debt rises above 85 or 90 percent of GDP.
The United States crossed that threshold in 2009, and the negative effects are probably mostly out in the future.
These will come at a bad time. The U.S. share of global economic output has been falling since
1999—by nearly 5 percentage points as of 2011. As America's GDP share declined, so did its
share of world trade, which may reduce U.S. influence in setting the rules for international trade.
And it's not just the debt itself that may be slowing GDP growth. Economists at Stanford and the University of
Chicago have demonstrated that uncertainty about economic policy—on the rise as a result of
political squabbling over U.S. fiscal policy—typically foreshadows slower economic growth.
Investors may be growing skittish about U.S. government debt levels and the disordered state of U.S.
fiscal policymaking.
From the beginning of 2002, when U.S. government debt was at its most recent minimum as a share of GDP,
to the end of 2012, the dollar lost 25 percent of its value, in price-adjusted terms, against a basket of the
currencies of major trading partners. This may have been because investors fear that the only way out of the
current debt problems will be future inflation. The dollar has also given up a bit of its dominance as the preferred
currency for international reserves among advanced economies. And the renminbi appears to have replaced
the dollar as the “reference currency” for most of East Asia. (The good news is that in recent years U.S.
banks have increased their share of deposits from foreigners, mostly at the expense of banks in London.)
More troubling for the future is that private domestic investment—the fuel for future economic growth—
shows a strong negative correlation with government debt levels over several business cycles dating
back to the late 1950s. Continuing high debt does not bode well in this regard.
But perhaps the worst consequences of U.S. debt are actions not taken.
U.S. international leadership has been based, in part, on contributions—political and financial—to
major institutions and initiatives—International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agreements on Tariffs
and Trade (and later World Trade Organization), NATO, North America Free Trade Agreement, the Marshall Plan,
and so on. These served U.S. interests and made the world better.
But what have we done lately? The Doha round of trade negotiations has stalled. Ditto efforts at
coordinated international action on climate change. Countries of the Arab Spring need rebuilding. Little
progress is apparent on the Transpacific Partnership, a proposed new free-trade area. And
warnings from the U.S. treasury secretary to his European counterparts about the dangers of
failing to resolve the fiscal crisis in the eurozone met with public rebukes: Get your own house in
order before you lecture us. Have U.S. fiscal problems undermined America's self confidence and
external credibility to the extent that it can no longer lead?
And what about unmet needs at home—healthcare costs, a foundering public education system,
deteriorating infrastructure, and increasing inequality? A strained fiscal situation that limits
resources for action and absorbs so much political energy cannot be helping with any of these
matters. But without progress on such things, what becomes of the social cohesion necessary for
unified action abroad or the moral authority to lead other nations by example?
America's fiscal predicament is serious. The problem has become obvious in the last few years, but it has been
building for decades, largely the result of promises of extensive social benefits without a corresponding willingness
to pay for them.
Putting U.S. government financing on a sustainable path will require painful adjustments over a number of years—
increased government revenue and painful reductions in government outlays, almost certainly including outlays for
defense and international affairs. During the necessary period of fiscal adjustment and constrained
government resources, U.S. international influence may decline yet further.
Tourism Good
The US should expand its influence in Cuba through lifting the travel ban
Griswold 02 Daniel T. Griswold, the associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. (“No: The Embargo
Harms Cubans and Gives Castro an Excuse for the Policy Failures of His Regime,” CATO, May 27, 2002,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-embargo-harms-cubans-gives-castro-excuse-policy-failures-regime Accessed: 06/26/2013)
Instead of relaxing the failed Cuban embargo, the Bush administration wants to continue the status quo. In a speech on May 20, the president
reaffirmed his support for keeping the trade and travel embargoes in place until the Cuban government holds free elections. The administration
already has quadrupled the number of Americans cited for violating the travel ban in 2001 compared with the number cited the last year of the
Clinton administration. For example, one 75-year-old retired schoolteacher was fined $1,000 for a recent bicycle tour through rural Cuba.
According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less freely to such “axis of evil” countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to
visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban-American.¶ The strongest supporters of the
Cuban trade embargo are Cuban-Americans concentrated in Southern Florida — an important constituency in a key electoral state. Yet those very
same Cuban-Americans routinely and massively violate the spirit if not the letter of the embargo. Each year, they send $800 million in hard-dollar
remittances to their friends and families back in Cuba; another 100,000 Cuban-Americans actually visit their homeland each year through a
special program for “emergency” visits (most of which occur around the Christmas holiday). In the name of politics, Cuban-American leaders
want to restrict the freedom of other Americans to visit Cuba while retaining that freedom for themselves.¶ Lifting or modifying the embargo
would not be a victory for Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgment that the
four-decade-old
embargo has failed and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more-open
societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights, while
allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below. ¶ Instead of the embargo, Congress and the
administration should take concrete if incremental steps to expand American influence in Cuba.
First, the travel ban should be lifted. Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but
dollars also would go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and an expert on
Cuba, argues that American
tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art and
operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars then would find their way to the 300 freely priced farmers’ markets, to
carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders and other entrepreneurs.
Lifting embargo increases travel and improves the economy.
Griswold 09 Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. (6/27/13,
“The US Embargo of Cuba is a Failure”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure)
¶Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation’s charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human
rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. ¶ The embargo has been a failure by every
measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has
made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it
has deprived
Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports.¶ “¶
Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and
farm exports to Cuba.”¶ As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy
excuse for the failures of the island’s Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo
inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of
extra leverage over what happens in Havana.¶ In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been
quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by
value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural
products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. ¶ According
to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This
should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the
embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way.¶ USITC
estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and
Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm
exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. ¶ Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put
dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it’s true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large
share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro
regime of those same dollars.¶ if
more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba
were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the
regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of “bread for
beaches”, “food for fun” trade relationship.¶ Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically
increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could
be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. ¶ Congress and President Barack
Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and
invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they
deserve.
Lifting embargo key to tourism.
Danielson 13 Richard Danielson, covers city government and politics in Tampa. He grew up in
Clearwater, graduated from Vanderbilt University and joined the Times in 1987. (“U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor:
Lift Cuba embargo, travel limits”, Tampa Bay Times, April 8, 2013,
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/us-rep-kathy-castor-lift-cuba-embargo-travelrestrictions/2113828, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
TAMPA — Saying "It's time to try something new," U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor on Monday called for the Obama administration
and Congress to lift travel restrictions and the 51-year-old trade embargo on Cuba.¶ "Cuba is changing," said Castor, DTampa, who left on a fact-finding trip there Wednesday evening and returned Saturday. "They have embarked on economic reforms
that the United States of America should promote. The
United States of America now should normalize
relations and begin a constructive dialogue with the island nation."¶ Castor has worked for years to help arrange direct
flights from Tampa International Airport to Havana, but her support for ending the embargo and travel restrictions goes further than
before.¶ Castor said Fidel Castro is no longer in power, described his brother, President Raul Castro, as "a much more practical ruler,"
and said there is a generational change in Cuba's government. ¶ "They
are still a hard-core communist nation, but
they are embarking on market reforms in their economy that deserve encouragement," said Castor,
who traveled with members of her staff and representatives of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Democracy in the Americas.¶
Castor said she plans to ask President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry "to open talks to lead to greater trade and
travel opportunities."¶ "This should not be done with blinders on, however," she said. "There are still very significant human rights
challenges in Cuba. It is still, to many extents, a repressive regime that does not allow citizens to enjoy all of the human rights that we all
enjoy.¶ "But after 50 years of an embargo and isolation that's proved that it hasn't worked, it's time to try something new and refresh
our relationship," she said.¶ Easing the restrictions would offer the United States a
variety of benefits, Castor said: a new
market for manufacturers who cannot sell to Cuba now, more influence over a Cuban offshore oil drilling industry whose
antiquated technology could threaten Florida beaches, and an opportunity for Tampa to become a tourism gateway t o
the island.¶ Castor was in Cuba the same time as celebrities Beyoncé and Jay-Z, and she said at one point she watched a "massive
crowd" outside their hotel chant "Beyoncé! Beyoncé!"¶ "American popular culture is ubiquitous," Castor said. "On the serious side, it
highlights the fact that Americans are prevented from traveling there, and that's the only country in the world that the American
government restricts (that) ability."¶ U.S. citizens need the federal government's permission to travel to Cuba. Cuban-Americans can get
a special license to visit family. Tourism is not permitted, but non-Cubans can get a license to travel there for cultural, humanitarian or
religious reasons.¶ South Florida Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, whose districts include large numbers of
Cuban-American residents, have sent a letter to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. It asked for
"the type of license that Beyoncé and Jay-Z received, for what purpose, and who approved such travel."¶ "Despite the clear prohibition
against tourism in Cuba, numerous press reports described the couple's trip as tourism, and the Castro regime touted it as such in its
propaganda," they wrote.¶ Citing news reports saying that the trip was fully licensed by the Treasury Department, Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio said that, "if true, the Obama administration should explain exactly how trips like these comply with U.S. law and regulations
governing travel to Cuba and it should disclose how many more of these trips they have licensed." ¶ Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Jeff
Flake of Arizona saw no problem, tweeting, "Fine by me. Every American should have the right to travel there." ¶ Tampa lawyer and
longtime anti-Castro activist Ralph Fernandez likewise said allowing Beyoncé and Jay-Z to travel to Cuba was wrong, and he plans to
put together a complaint to be turned over to the Justice Department for their prosecution. ¶ Fernandez also criticized Castor's
suggestion to end the embargo, saying many
Lifting the embargo key to tourism and a better economy.
Lloyd 11 Delia Lloyd, PhD in political science.
(“Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, Huffpost Politics, 2011, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo, Date Accessed: June 28, 2013, SD)
It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to
the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United
States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous
boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with
all financing and travel
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13
million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between
18 and 42 percent.
Lifting Embargo Key to Tourism
Griswold ’05 Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. (“Four Decades of Failure:
The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba”, CATO Institute, October 12, 2005, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failureus-embargo-against-cuba, Accessed: July 3, 2013, SD)
Presented at the the James A. Baker III Institute Program, Cuba and the United States in
the 21st Century at Rice University, Houston, Texas.
The real dividing line in U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro
regime and hasten the island’s day of liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S.
government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to undermine the regime
and deprive it of resources. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with,
investing in, or traveling to Cuba. The embargo had a national security rationale before
1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Union’s proxy in the Western Hemisphere. But all
that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, more than a decade after losing
billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and
dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security.
Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could
earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products,
especially farm goods.
The ban on tourism cost US tourism agencies almost a billion dollars
Grogg 06- Patricia Grogg; Cuban correspondent to IPS, studied Journalism in the University of Havana (“Cuba
Embargo’s Boomerang Effect” IPS, October 2006, http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/cuba-embargosboomerang-effect/, accessed: 6/27/13, ML)
Washington’s embargo against Cuba also has an impact on the United States economy and prevents
millions of U.S. citizens from benefiting from Cuban medical progress, according to a report released by the Cuban foreign ministry.
The text of the report will be presented at the United Nations General Assembly, which on Nov. 8 will be examining for the fifteenth consecutive
year the need to end the embargo imposed by Washington on Havana more than four decades ago. The document states that “because of the
blockade regulations” it has been impossible to begin clinical trials in the U.S. with TheraCIM, a Cuban pharmaceutical product for treating brain
tumours in children.
TheraCIM is produced by the Molecular Immunology Centre, which in 2004 made a deal with U.S. company CancerVax to develop and produce
therapeutic vaccines against cancer.
This medication is registered in Cuba and other countries for treating cancer of the head and neck, and has been proved to reduce tumour mass. It
could benefit children in the United States and other countries with this type of cancer, the report points out.
It also adds that were it not for the embargo, millions of people in the United States suffering from diabetes could benefit from Citoprot P, a
unique product and treatment method that accelerates healing of diabetic foot ulcers, reducing the risk of lower extremity amputations.
Citoprot P was developed by the Cuban Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. According to the foreign ministry report, about 20.8
million people in the United States suffer from diabetes, a chronic incurable disease.
The restrictions that Cuba calls a blockade and the U.S. an embargo have cost this Caribbean country 86.1 billion dollars in total damages
throughout the period, including four billion in 2005 alone, the document says.
Last year the U.N. approved by 182 votes the Cuban motion in favour of lifting the embargo. The motion was first set before the U.N. General
Assembly in 1992, when only 59 countries voted in favour of the resolution.
The report states that the
ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba causes tourist agents in the U.S. losses of 565
million dollars per million U.S. tourists who are prevented from visiting the country.
An estimated 1.8 million U.S. tourists could have vacationed in this Caribbean island in 2005, but because
of the ban, U.S. tourist agencies lost potential income of 996 million dollars, the report says.
China proves that opening up the tourism ushers in new freedoms and solves poverty.
Brinkley 12- Joel Brinkley, former NYT foreign correspondent, professor of journalism at Stanford (“Cuba
embargo isn't working but isn't going away”, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cuba-embargo-isntworking-but-isnt-going-away-85281.html, accessed: 6/28/13, ML)
Some Cuba experts
argue that allowing American tourists to visit Cuba for the first time since 1960
might bring the beginnings of substantial change by fostering greater prosperity. They point to
China, a passive agrarian society until the government opened the economy, pulling millions of
Chinese out of poverty. Suddenly, these newly prosperous people began standing up to their
government, demanding greater freedom and opportunities. The same could be true for Cuba,
Henken said.
Lifting travel embargo has helped Cuba’s economy
Sweig and Bustamante 13- Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America
Studies and Director for Latin America Studies; Michael Bustamante, PhD candidate specializing in Latin American
and Caribbean History at Yale, dissertation about the cultural politics of Cuban collective and historical memory, on
and off the island, in the wake of the 1959 Revolution, served as Research Associate for Latin America Studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations. (“Cuba After Communism”, Council on Foreign Relations,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991, July/August 2013, accessed: 7/3/13, ML)
Cuba's recent reform of its migration law neatly encapsulates a number of the possibilities,
limits, and implications of Castro's larger agenda. Despite being both a sign of the state's willingness to
make strategic decisions and arguably the most important reform to date, the new law also underscores the
uphill battles that remain and illustrates the difficulty of managing optics and expectations. As
with most issues in Cuban society, the line between politics and economics is entirely blurred.
Faced with an exodus of educated professionals and capital from the country after the revolution, the Cuban
government began heavily regulating the movement of its citizens abroad in the early 1960s. In light of émigrés'
direct involvement in attempts to unseat the Castro regime, often financed by the U.S. government, Havana treated
migration as a matter of national security. For many years, those who succeeded in leaving, legally or
illegally, had their property stripped by the state and could not, barring extraordinary exceptions,
return home. Such restrictions left deep wounds.
Yet it has been a long time since Cubans on the island and off could be neatly divided between anticommunists and
pro-Castro revolutionaries. Any visit to the Miami airport today attests to the strength of transnational
ties; in peak season, over a hundred weekly charter flights carry Cubans and Cuban Americans
between the two countries. Such travel, allowed under some circumstances since the late 1970s, has
expanded considerably since 2009, when U.S. President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on family
visits. In 2012, upward of 400,000 Cubans in the United States visited the island. And this is to say nothing of the
hundreds of thousands of Cuban emigrants living across Latin America, Canada, Europe, and beyond who also visit
and support family at home.
Indeed, by making it easier for Cubans to travel, work abroad, and then return home, Cuba's new
migration law is also meant to stimulate the economy. At an estimated $1 billion a year, remittances
have been big business since the late 1990s, helping Cubans compensate for low salaries and take
advantage of what few opportunities have existed for private enterprise. Now that the
government has undertaken a wider expansion of the small-business sector, ties between the
diaspora and the island are bringing an even greater payoff. Cubans abroad are already helping
invest money in the window-front cafeterias, repair shops, and other small businesses popping up
across the country. Some islanders are also sending their own money out of the country so that relatives can buy
them consumer goods abroad.
Beyond redressing a deeply unpopular status quo, however, the new migration law has put the government in an
awkward position. Assuming enough Cubans can afford the now reduced, but still comparatively high, fees
associated with acquiring necessary travel documents, other countries -- principally the United States -- will need to
continue receiving Cuban visitors and migrants in large numbers. Ironically, Havana has long criticized the special
preferences granted to Cubans under U.S. immigration law for seeming to encourage and reward dangerous attempts
to reach U.S. shores. Now, Cuba appears to benefit from such measures' remaining on the books -- especially the
one-year fast track to permanent residency established by the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act. Under Cuba's expanded
two-year allowance for legal residency abroad, the more than 20,000 Cubans emigrating legally to the United States
each year will be able to acquire green cards without necessarily giving up their citizenship claims, homes, or
businesses on the island.
Small-time diaspora capital may prove easier to regulate and rely on than funds from
multinational corporations driven strictly by profits. Under the repatriation provisions of the island's new
migration law, some Cubans may even retire to the island with their pensions and savings after decades of working
abroad. Yet opening the doors for more young citizens to leave could prove risky for a quickly
aging, low-birthrate society that has been suffering from a brain drain for some time. Besides, along
with remittance dollars, Cuba urgently needs both medium and large investors. Ultimately, only larger
outlays can help fix Cuba's most fundamental economic problem: its depleted productive base.
Castro appears to recognize that attracting foreign investment, decentralizing the government,
and further expanding the private sector are the only ways to tackle this long-term predicament.
The government is unlikely to proceed with anything but caution, however. Officials are wary of rocking the
domestic political boat, and citizens and party leaders alike recoil from the prospect of more radical shock therapy.
Rising public protests in China and Vietnam against inequality and rampant corruption have only reinforced the
Cuban government's preference for gradualism.
Striking an adequate balance will be no easy task. In late 2012, Havana legalized the creation of
transportation cooperatives -- private, profit-sharing entities owned and manage by their members -- to fix
bottlenecks in agricultural distribution. Meanwhile, 100 state enterprises are now running their finances completely
autonomously as part of a yearlong pilot program. The government is also reportedly considering ways to offer a
wider array of potential foreign partners more advantageous terms for joint ventures. But the Communist Party
is working through numerous contradictions -- recognizing a place for market economics,
challenging old biases against entrepreneurs, and hinting at decentralizing the budget while
incongruously insisting, in the words of its official 2011 guidelines, that "central planning, and
not the market, will take precedence."
American travel stops censorship – spread of capitalism
Tampa Tribune 6/9/13 – Editorials section. (“Ease travel restrictions to Cuba to boost freedom,” The Tampa
Tribune, 6/9/13, http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-editorials/ease-travel-restrictions-to-cuba-to-boost-freedom20130609/, accessed:7/3/13, amf)
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.”
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 time-consuming. Obtaining
general license is far less complicated, so expanding its use would eliminate red tape and
diminish barriers to travel.
It could, depending on how the executive order was written, give travelers more flexibility in what they
do in Cuba. It might allow Americans to travel outside of tours. This would likely benefit those Cubans
trying to establish private businesses, such as small hotels or restaurants.
In any event, making travel to Cuba less daunting would result in more American visitors, which
we believe would generate more support for an open society in Cuba.
In April, 59 members of Congress, including Hillsborough's Rep. Kathy Castor, wrote the president
urging him to "allow all current categories of permissible travel, including people-to-people, to
be carried out under a general license."
It is, as the representatives stress, a logical next step for the president, who already has eased some
travel restrictions, including allowing flights from Tampa to Cuba, which have proved popular.
The United States' tough trade and travel prohibitions unquestionably were necessary after Fidel Castro's communist
takeover, when he confiscated property, ruthlessly suppressed opposition, sought to export revolution to Latin
America and provided a base for the Soviet Union.
But 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.
Energy (oil, natural gas, etc.)
Cuba talking about renewable energy
Plain 13- Prensa Latina Agencia Informativa Latinoamericana, Prensa Latina is also an important publishing
house. Prensa Latina is also periodic publications, some of them made to ord