Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,600 |
Economic freedom is, as Martha Stewart might say, a good thing. That's not just my bias as a libertarian: I've got science on my side. In a new study published in Contemporary Economic Policy, two of the authors of the annual Economic Freedom Index set out to see how other researchers were using their work. Specifically, West Virginia University economist Joshua Hall and Southern Methodist University economist Robert Lawson found 402 scholarly articles that use some aspect of the index, which the Fraser Institute has published each year since 1996. The institute broadly defines economic freedom as “the extent to which you can pursue economic activity without interference from government, as long as your actions don't violate the identical rights of others.”¶ Once Hall and Lawson identified the articles citing the Index, they whittled the list down to 198 papers that use it as a substantive variable in their analyses, usually trying to correlate economic freedom with some other outcome, such as economic growth, income levels, productivity, poverty, inequality, and so forth. Based on the effects identified in each study, Hall and Lawson sorted the articles into three outcome groups: good, bad, and mixed. An example of a good outcome would be a 2008 study in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization that found that “those societies that rely upon individual economic freedoms to promote women’s well-being have been more successful than those societies relying upon greater political rights.”¶ Similarly, a 2006 study published in the Journal of International Trade & Development correlated child labor rates with the index's ratings of countries' openness to trade. From 1960 to 2000, the article reported, “Child labor force participation rates declined on average by 3 percentage points per decade while trade openness increased on average by 6 to 7 percentage points.” A third study, published in Contemporary Economic Policy in 2008, found that economic freedom correlated with greater protection against the extinction of species. Insecure property rights, for example, are associated with increased deforestation.¶
|
Bailey 5/10 – award-winning science correspondent at Reason magazine and author of Liberation Biology (Prometheus) (Ronald [his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years], “Economic Freedom Is Good for Women, Children, and Other Living Things,” Reason.com, 10 May 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/10/economic-freedom-is-good-for-women-child, Accessed 1 July 2013)
|
Economic freedom is good Economic Freedom Index 402 scholarly articles that use some aspect of the index societies rely upon individual economic freedoms to promote well-being a 2006 study correlated child labor rates with the index's ratings of countries' openness to trade Child labor force participation rates declined by 3 percent while trade openness increased on average by 6 to 7 percent economic freedom correlated with greater protection against the extinction of species. Insecure property rights are associated with increased deforestation.¶
|
Economic freedom helps solve extinction from species and deforestation.
| 2,148 | 71 | 552 | 332 | 9 | 81 | 0.027108 | 0.243976 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,601 |
BOGOTA -- FIDEL CASTRO'S legacy will be discussed, mourned and even celebrated in editorials, blogs, obituaries and street demonstrations. But the only important question right now is whether his resignation means any real change to the life of ordinary Cubans after decades of economic and political oppression.¶ The right freedoms could not only liberate Cubans from political oppression but help them to build a prosperous economy and eliminate poverty. Political liberties will not be enough. Economic freedoms and private property are the keys to any economic development and the debate must start now.¶ Cubans were told they needed to surrender their freedoms to liberate themselves from capitalist oppression. This is the totalitarian paradox: If you want liberation, you need to give up liberty. Whatever oppression Cubans suffered before was quickly replaced by the brutality of an authoritarian one-party regime, or rather, a one-person regime ruled by his desires, prejudices and ambitions.¶ Cubans were also told that giving up their freedoms was essential to another kind of liberation -- liberation from poverty -- with similar results. Shortly after the revolution, Cuba's economy collapsed. Later, the helping hand of the Soviet Union provided some stability and a minimum of supplies. But, whatever the propaganda, the Cuban economy was always struggling to survive: All was revealed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the regime was left to its own devices. Hunger, poverty, malnutrition and shortages became part of everyday life.¶ Developing countries that insist on restricting markets have so far achieved only one result: perpetuating poverty, whatever the political model. But a working model for transition can be found in the experiences of some eastern European countries, such as Slovakia and the Baltic republics and even some African countries, such as Botswana and Mauritius: opening to free trade, allowing private enterprise and imposing light taxes, and adopting a flat tax.¶ There are no reliable statistics about the Cuban economy but every indicator puts it among the poorest in the world. Nevertheless, Cubans are well positioned to make a leap toward prosperity: In spite of political indoctrination, education levels in Cuba are higher than in most poor countries. If only the Cubans had the right institutions, if only they could live under the rule of law and enjoy free markets, this human capital would generate prosperity. In fact, if there is a proof of the inability of socialism to create wealth, it is that Cuba, with its educated population, remains poorer than many countries where illiteracy is the rule.¶ Of course, opening markets will not be enough: The rule of law is a crucial element, giving protection to property rights, impartial courts and the stability that underpins business, trade and development.¶ The first step now, after Fidel, should be a no-strings gesture from one of the main actors in the Cuban transition: The United Sates should quickly repeal its infamous embargo. It is not true that the embargo is the cause of Cuba's economic ills, as admirers of Castro maintain, but ending the embargo would create immediate economic opportunities along with a show of goodwill.¶ Economic freedom is an essential part of human rights and Cubans have long been deprived of all their rights. The history of the United States shows how solid foundations of prosperity and stability underpin the building of political freedom. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown how political rights are worthless without the prosperity and stability that come from economic freedom. Please don't get it back to front again.
|
Vergnaud 08, Director of the Colombian think-tank Instituto Libertad y Progreso, in Bogota (Andres Mejia, “Cuba needs economic as well as political freedom,” International Policy Network, 26 February 2008, http://www.policynetwork.net/es/development/media/cuba-needs-economic-well-political-freedom, Accessed 27 June 2013)
|
right freedoms liberate Cubans from political oppression help them to build a prosperous economy and eliminate poverty. . Economic freedoms are the keys to any economic development Cubans were told they needed to surrender their freedoms to liberate themselves from capitalist oppression. This is the totalitarian paradox: If you want liberation, you need to give up liberty. Cuban economy was always struggling to survive when the regime was left to its own devices. Hunger, poverty, malnutrition and shortages became part of everyday life restricting markets have so far achieved perpetuating poverty But a working model for transition opening to free trade, allowing private enterprise and imposing light taxes, and adopting a flat tax.¶ Cubans are well positioned to make a leap toward prosperity If only the Cubans could live under the rule of law and enjoy free markets, this human capital would generate prosperity Cuba, with its educated population, remains poorer than many countries where illiteracy is the rule Economic freedom is an essential part of human rights and Cubans have long been deprived of all their rights
|
Economic liberalization and freedom solves poverty and economic stability
| 3,688 | 73 | 1,130 | 583 | 9 | 178 | 0.015437 | 0.305317 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,602 |
As a great deal of political rhetoric in the United States revolves around measures to alter socio-economic inequalities, its neighbor to the south, Cuba, presents a rare case study on economic liberalization and its effect on equality. With economic equality comes not only a fairer society, but also a more stable one, and it is time that the United States focuses on bettering itself for everyone and not just a few.¶ Economic equality in Cuba stems from the communist system, surely, but there seems to be more to it than that. Contrary to the beliefs of many, Cubans are able to buy and own more than the limits placed on them by rations and government handouts. A Cuban, while only recently able to buy or sell his or her home, has always been able to purchase other luxury items to distinguish himself or herself – even American-made products find their way there.¶ Cuba, despite its economic woes, has seen significant gains in social indicators. There remain signs of a widening gap between the rich and the poor–yet, it is not uncommon for the “chauffer” to sit down with the “doctor” at his home for a meal. Gender equality in the country is on par with that of developed countries and getting better each year. There are no private schools. As argued in an article by The Atlantic, educational equality equals economic equality, and Cuba’s schools are not only equal: they receive high priority in the national budget, with over 10% spent on education.¶ ¶ The prevalence of remittances threatens economic equality and does create some disparity, but often these remittances have been distributed among so many family members, they rarely make anyone rich. That, however, is changing rapidly as Obama has lifted restrictions on remittances. The cash-strapped island will be reluctant to stop the currency inflow. These remittances are also disproportionately concentrated in Havana and a few other cities, as these places have historically had higher migration opportunities. Already, there are neighborhoods in Havana where the houses are better maintained and the feeling is more affluent.¶ Illegal economic activity also undermines economic equality and will play a bigger role as the state further opens itself to tourists. Illegal sales of goods and services are very pervasive. Nearly every Cuban household engages in some sort of illegal economic activity in order to supplement their government wages and rations. As in a capitalist society, some entrepreneurs are more successful than others. However, the clandestine nature of this income generation has generally limited its potential to create any obvious economic disparity between neighbors. This, too, will change as the tourism sector flourishes and the U.S. eases its restrictions on travel to the country.¶ The political and economic reforms that have taken place since the 1990s (Over 300 modifications have been made in the last decade alone) have seemingly put Cuba on a slow path toward modernization. Now, Cubans are free to buy and sell homes and used cars, a practice banned since the Revolution. While still swearing allegiance to socialism, Raúl Castro has called for an end to monthly ration books and for the expansion of private enterprise. He has assured Cubans that they would continue to receive free access to health care and education, but has maintained that Cuba’s economy could not support the ration books and other government handouts. He had called to lay-off over 500 public employees, encouraging them to find work in the limited private sector, but later postponed those plans.¶ ¶ These changes have led to an increase in foreign direct investment and tourism. Cubans working in these sectors stand to see an increase in their economic prospects, whether they be gained legally or illegally. Already, there is increasing disparity between the rural Eastern part of the island. Legal hurdles remain prohibiting the free relocation of Cuban citizens to other areas of the country. While a citizen may be free to buy and sell his house, he is still unable to relocate to Havana without permission from the state.¶ ¶ The U.S. has already started easing restrictions imposed through its embargo against Cuba and has flirted with the idea of ending it altogether. The embargo has been criticized by the international community. While Cuba has asked twenty times for the end of the embargo at the United Nations General Assembly, the U.S. has continually refused. If the embargo is lifted, the island nation will undoubtedly see an increase in tourism profits as well as an increase in foreign direct investment and trade. While this could be achieved through government run and controlled operations, it is unlikely that the U.S. will lift the embargo without some sort of provision that limits this scenario.¶ ¶ The timid steps taken by Raúl Castro have shown that the government understands change must take place, as its current economic situation is stagnant and unsustainable. However, Castro is unsure how to move forward while still hanging onto the rapidly fading ideals of the Revolution. Nevertheless, even while Raúl Castro has spoken of liberalization and freedoms (even proposing political reforms that may signal an end to dictatorial rule), he has kept Cuba’s repressive legal and institutional structures in place. Cubans cannot leave the country legally without a Carta Blanca (an exit visa, which is not guaranteed) or freely relocate within the country. There are still repressive limits to free speech and expression. Even after the hunger strike of Orlando Zapata Tamayo in 2010 provoked the release of over 40 political prisoners, many remain in Cuban prisons. It is clear that these tactics serve only to keep the Castros in power, and they keep relations with the U.S. tepid at best. Many critics argue that any reforms will be constrained by the memory of the Revolution and the goals of its founders, rather than sweeping, generational changes. The remains of the Revolution may put a chokehold on further political reforms.¶ ¶ As Cuba seeks ways to grow its economy, it will undoubtedly see the creation of some economic inequality. It has no choice but to liberalize the economy in order to maintain its social spending, but in doing so it will create new social problems. The central government will need to move away from universal social policy to more diversified programs. Centralized planning has not, historically, had much success in broadening programs to meet the needs of different sectors of its population, but this will be essential for the political structure to maintain its legitimacy. In order to address these different needs, the government will need to admit that there is inequality, which it may be reluctant to do. It will need to decide how much inequality is acceptable and what the requirements for attaining it are.¶ ¶ The pace and scope of these changes will not only alter the future for the country–it could possibly be the trailblazer for a liberalized market economy with a high level of economic equality. Clearly, Cuba is a long way from a liberalized market economy, but unlike other economies moving in this direction (China, for example), Cuba is the only one starting from relative equality. How it proceeds in the coming years as it is gradually integrated into the global economy could show the world another way of doing things.
|
Borg 12 – Fordham Master of Arts (M.A.), Economics; Fordham Master, International Political Economy of Development, Economics; Minnesota State University Bachelor, Finance (Brittany, “Economic Liberalization in Cuba,” Fordham Political Review, 4 November 2012, http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/?p=326, accessed 6/27/13)//IS
|
With economic equality comes not only a fairer society, but also a more stable one, Illegal economic activity also undermines economic equality and will play a bigger role as the state further opens itself to tourists These changes have led to an increase in foreign direct investment and tourism. The timid steps taken by Raúl Castro have shown that the government understands change must take place, as its current economic situation is stagnant and unsustainable. It has no choice but to liberalize the economy in order to maintain its social spending, The central government will need to move away from universal social policy to more diversified programs Cuba is a long way from a liberalized market economy, but unlike other economies moving in this direction Cuba is the only one starting from relative equality
|
Economic liberalization in Cuba is directly linked to an increase in political and human rights – our ev is also reverse causal
| 7,397 | 128 | 818 | 1,211 | 22 | 134 | 0.018167 | 0.110652 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,603 |
Most people think that poverty–maybe not as it exists in the first world, but at least as it exists in the third world–is pretty awful. For one thing, most people think–or at least often talk as if–premature death is one of the worst things that can happen to you. They understand what is meant by “a fate worse than death,” but think such fates are extraordinarily rare. Murder gets a special place in the ten commandments, and questions of causing or preventing death have gotten a key place in ethical thinking ever since: famed ethicist Peter Singer is best-known for writing about questions like “is it OK to kill animals for food,” “how strong are our obligations to prevent other people from dying?” “when is it OK to make medical decisions that we know will result in death?”¶ All this means poverty must be pretty bad, because really extreme poverty increases your risk of starving to death because you can afford food, or dying from disease because you can’t afford medicine or maybe even basic sanitation, or freezing to death because you can’t afford shelter. There is also a definite correlation, though perhaps a harder to explain one, between poverty and your chance of being murdered.¶ And death isn’t the only reason to think poverty is awful. Pain is pretty bad, and in the case of every bad thing listed above, there is an extremely painful if non-lethal version: starving, just not to death; having a horrible illness you don’t die from; constantly suffering from lack of shelter, but never freezing to death; and being brutally maimed, oppressed, raped, or tortured, though never murdered. And aside from these positive evils, poverty may simply deprive people of the things that make life worthwhile, like education or even “time spent not worrying about survival.¶ A corral of these seemingly-obvious facts is that a world where the population is kept in check by shortages of food and medicine is a much worse place than a world where the population is kept in check by birth control. Thus, we should be glad for the invention of birth control, and sickened by the thought that evolution may one day cause an innate distaste for birth control to be universal in the population. Or should we? Robin Hanson recently said otherwise:¶ Our ancestors were designed with pleasure and pain to motivate them in a near subsistence world. Lives of continuous torture, where they’d rather be dead, were rare. Our descendants will be similarly adapted to find joy and meaning in their near subsistence lives. And intense pain may well be eliminated in favor of other ways to inducing the required focus. Contact with virtual worlds and with a vast larger society will be far cheaper for them that it was for our ancestors, though contact with a real wild nature will be more expensive.¶ One easy assumption to pick on is the assumption that a life of continuous torture = you’d rather be dead. The evolutionary pressure not to prefer death is a lot stronger than the evolutionary pressure not to experience a life of torture. A quote from David Hume is relevant here:¶ All animals might be constantly in a state of enjoyment: but when urged by any of the necessities of nature, such as thirst, hunger, weariness; instead of pain, they might feel a diminution of pleasure, by which they might be prompted to seek that object which is necessary to their subsistence. Men pursue pleasure as eagerly as they avoid pain; at least they might have been so constituted. It seems, therefore, plainly possible to carry on the business of life without any pain. Why then is any animal ever rendered susceptible of such a sensation?¶ Hume was using pain as a powerful refutation of the idea of a benevolent creator, but while the existence of pain does come into any such conflict with evolutionary theory, Hume’s question is still a puzzle for evolutionary theory. There’s no particular reason for evolution to have settled on a particular pain-pleasure system for motivating animals, no reason for it not to settle on a system of mostly pleasure, but also no reason for it to settle on a system of mostly pain. And it may be that in fact the latter is what has happened–but we don’t see how horrible the situation is, because evolution has programmed us not to kill ourselves under mere ordinary horribleness.¶ And it does in fact seem that ordinary horribleness is quite horrible. The quote above is from the two chapters (X and XI) of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which put all Hume’s literary talents to describing just how awful the pains that many people of Hume’s day felt were–a must read for thinking about this issue. Spend enough time reading literature from before modern prosperity came to be taken for granted, and you’ll start to feel like such descriptions are all over the place. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stewart Mill conceded to critics of his theory that moments of really great pleasure tend to be brief, and few escape the really awful calamities that life can visit upon us. Bertrand Russell once wrote that in his day, advances in technology were just beginning to make life tolerable. I have never actually read Malthus, but I can imagine what he said about this issue.¶ I am tempted by Hanson’s alternative explanations for why rich people like me are so horrified by poverty, and on a theoretical level I can think of arguments for why we should care less than we do about premature death. But when I think about the basic reasons why poverty is so horrible, and about the way people closer in touch with it have written about it, such explanations (to quote Hume again) appear to me so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further.
|
Hallquist 09 – recently graduated from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI, with a BA in Philosophy. Graduate student in philosophy at the University of Notre Dame in the fall of 2009. (Chris, “How bad is poverty, really?,” The HallQ, 6 October 2009, http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/10/06/how-bad-is-poverty-really/, accessed 6/28/13)//IS
|
poverty is pretty awful most people think death is one of the worst things that can happen to you but think such fates are extraordinarily rare extreme poverty increases your risk of starving to death because you can afford food, or dying from disease because you can’t afford medicine or maybe even basic sanitation, or freezing to death because you can’t afford shelter definite correlation between poverty and your chance of being murdered.¶ there is an extremely painful if non-lethal version: starving having a horrible illness constantly suffering and being brutally maimed, oppressed, raped, or tortured when I think about the basic reasons why poverty is so horrible, and about the way people closer in touch with it have written about it, such explanations appear to me so cold, and strained
|
And poverty directly leads to oppression
| 5,736 | 40 | 800 | 990 | 6 | 131 | 0.006061 | 0.132323 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,604 |
In what sense are human rights central to liberalism? ¶ Watson: ¶ It seems to me that a liberal approach to life, the whole basis of philosophy of classical liberalism revolves around the dignity, and freedom of an individual. Therefore, if anything that is damaging to individual freedom or individual dignity is an attack on liberal ideas. And that is why, although you will find people from other political ideologies also defending human rights those who always consistently and actively defend human rights are liberals. ¶ What distinguishes liberal from other ideologies?¶ Watson:¶ I think we achieved a huge amount in the last two hundreds years in spreading and in deepening the concept of human rights. If you go back to the earliest thinking about human rights, it was very limited. Our ideas of human rights now are very much board, and have even let to debate among liberals about how board human rights can be considered. For example, some people would argue that a women's right to have abortion is a human rights. Some would argue that it is not. But the fact that we are in the territory that we have moved the human rights so far that have told us that we have huge success in this debate. It is because we have been so successful, that you find people from other political families defending and promoting a human rights agenda which is no longer a sole liberal agenda. It is an agenda shared by others.¶ How much have liberals achieved in promoting human rights in recent history?¶ Watson: ¶ If one looks the slightly more recent history of human rights, you will find liberals behind the International Declaration on Human Rights, and you will find liberals active in the development of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on Economic and Social Rights. If one takes another more recent and equally powerful example, the campaign to establish an International Criminal Court for those guilty of crimes against humanity was a liberal led initiative. W can also find all examples all over the world of liberals in governments vastly improving the “Rights Culture” in the countries they govern. ¶ ¶ What are the most urgent human right issues that should be addressed?¶ Watson: ¶ Liberals need to have a further debate about how widely we define human rights. I think it is possible that we risk the dimension the campaign for basic human rights, if we widen our definition to far and therefore lose the support of some of those who will otherwise come with us. If you look across the world today. You can see in developed democracies, a well-establishment rights culture, and a debate about new rights, we ignore that our peril the fact that many of the world citizens live without even basic rights. Whether we are fighting for the rights of freedom of speech and assembly in Singapore or in the People's Republic of China, or whether we are arguing about the rights to basic education and health care in Africa or in some parts of Asia. The campaign to achieve basic rights for a large percentage of humanity should be in my mind take precedence over the camping to extend our conception of rights in developed democracies. The two are not neutrally exclusive. But let us remember that many people have very few rights.
|
Watson 12 - a British Politician, served as a Member of the European Parliament for South West England since 1994 and was the leader of the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party 2002–2004 and the first leader of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe 2004–2009. Since 2011, he has been the President of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. (Graham, “Interview: Graham Watson Rethinking Liberalism and Human Rights,” Liberal International, 2012, http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=1492, accessed 6/26/13)//IS
|
the whole basis of philosophy of classical liberalism revolves around freedom of an individual if anything that is damaging to individual freedom or individual dignity is an attack on liberal ideas. those who always consistently and actively defend human rights are liberals. ¶ You can see in developed democracies, a well-establishment rights culture, and a debate about new rights, we ignore that our peril the fact that many of the world citizens live without even basic rights The campaign to achieve basic rights for a large percentage of humanity
|
Liberalism is a precursor for human rights
| 3,295 | 42 | 552 | 567 | 7 | 89 | 0.012346 | 0.156966 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,605 |
The UN General Assembly condemned the implementation of unilateral economic coercive measures with extraterritorial effects, considering them an instrument of political or economic pressure against any country and their inhabitant’s rights.¶ The rejection was adopted yesterday by 137 votes in favor and 54 against, with no abstentions.¶ Among the votes against are the United States, Israel and almost all European Union countries, but none from Latin America and the Caribbean or Africa.¶ The text is titled Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures, and states that the condemned actions were intended to prevent countries from exercising their right to freely determine their political, economic and social development.¶ Such measures also preclude the full realization of economic and social development of the population of the affected countries, harm their welfare and create obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights, including health, food, medical care and necessary social services.¶ The text also warns that food and medicines should not be used as an instrument of political pressure.¶ It also rejects the extraterritorial nature of unilateral coercive measures for threatening the sovereignty of States and urges not to recognize or implement them, but to counteract them with administrative or legislative decisions.
|
Voltaire Network 12 – commenting on recent UN legal activity, an international non-profit organization, based in Paris. It stated aim is the promotion of freedom and secularism, that is separation of church and state, faith and politics. (Voltaire Network, “UN Condemns Unilateral Coercive Measures,” 20 December 2012, http://www.voltairenet.org/article172190.html, accessed 6/27/13)
|
UN condemned unilateral economic coercive measures considering them an instrument of political or economic pressure against any country and their inhabitant’s rights The text states that the condemned actions were intended to prevent countries from exercising their right to freely determine their political, economic and social development.¶ food and medicines should not be used as an instrument of political pressure.¶
|
The coercive measures of a non-liberalized economy and a unilateral force destroy human rights
| 1,342 | 94 | 421 | 198 | 14 | 60 | 0.070707 | 0.30303 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,606 |
Raz identifies three ‘conditions of autonomy’ that must be fulfilled for the agent to be able to lead an autonomous life: (a) appropriate mental abilities, (b) adequate range of options, and (c) independence. By (a) Raz means that the autonomous agent must be in possession of a minimum of rationality, i.e. the mental faculties to set one’s own goals, the ability to comprehend the means required to realize them, etc. More interesting in (Raz’s account is b): the idea that ‘autonomy’ requires the availability of an adequate range of options to choose from. In order to understand this point, we should have a glimpse at Raz’s notion of well-being: a person’s well-being depends on her being the maker or the author of her own life, and on the availability to her of a multiplicity of valuable options. There is a direct connection, therefore, between having a valuable life and being autonomous. A life in which an agent is not in the condition to choose would be much less valuable than one in which s/he is. To be autonomous a person must not only be given a choice, but s/he must be given an adequate range of choices. Someone whose decisions are extracted from him/her through coercion is not acting autonomously: equally, someone who is paralysed and cannot take advantage of the options available to him/her lacks autonomy. If the autonomous life is about choosing, then, guaranteeing someone’s autonomy entails providing the individual with an adequate range of options from which to choose. By ‘adequate’ Raz emphasizes not the ‘number’, but rather the ‘variety’: “[a] choice between hundreds of identical and identically situated houses is no choice, compared with a choice between a town flat and a suburban house”. Furthermore, ‘variety’ in the strict sense is not enough either: choosing between a variety of morally repugnant actions does not qualify as ‘autonomous choice’. If I am faced with a choice between applying for a PhD at the university, or killing someone, then I am not autonomously choosing what to do: for Raz, the choice between good and evil is no choice at all.
|
Moraro 8 – moral and political philosopher, working mainly in the area of democracy and political obligation (Piero, “Autonomy and Autonomy-based Duties: an argument for disobedience?,” University of Stirling, 2008, http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0016/15631/Moraro_paper.doc, Accessed 1 July 2013)
|
‘autonomy’ requires availability of options to choose from a person’s well-being depends on her being the maker of her own life, and on the availability to her of a multiplicity of valuable options direct connection between having a valuable life and being autonomous To be autonomous a person must not only be given a choice, but s he must be given an adequate range of choices. Someone whose decisions are extracted from her through coercion is not acting autonomously autonomous life is about choosing
|
Only an autonomous life free from coercion is worth living.
| 2,096 | 59 | 504 | 352 | 10 | 84 | 0.028409 | 0.238636 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,607 |
While we support the Administration's changes concerning remittances last year as a matter of principle and policy, the reality remains that a portion of that multi-million dollar export to the island nation inevitably returns to the Cuban state. Thus, to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions remains irrational and unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within the country.
|
Warren 10 – Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (Vincent, “Open Letter to President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba,” Center for Constitutional Rights, 26 August 2010, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf, Accessed 1 July 2013)
|
to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions remains unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within the country
|
Continuing travel ban won’t cause regime change
| 443 | 47 | 174 | 67 | 7 | 26 | 0.104478 | 0.38806 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,608 |
Introduction Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. In 2012 the government of Raúl Castro continued to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. During its first UPR review, Cuba rejected all recommendations addressing the arbitrary detentions of political prisoners, the lack of protection of human rights defenders, and restrictions on freedom of expression. Since then, Human Rights Watch has continued documenting cases of serious abuses of these rights. The Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners in 2010 and 2011 on the condition that they accept exile in exchange for their freedom. Yet while the overall number of political prisoners has declined, the government has increasingly relied upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move about freely. Meanwhile, the government continues to sentence dissidents to long-term prison sentences in closed, summary trials, or hold them for extended periods without charge. Political Prisoners In line with the rejection by the Cuban government of the recommendation to “halt the prosecution of citizens who are exercising the rights guaranteed under articles 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the UDHR,” Cubans who dare to criticize the government risk criminal charges – which is in clear contradiction with Cuba’s international human rights obligations – and will not enjoy due process guarantees, such as the right to fair and public hearings by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. In practice, courts are “subordinated” to the executive and legislative branches, thus denying meaningful judicial protection. Political prisoners’ are routinely denied parole after completing the minimum required sentence as punishment for refusing to participate in ideological activities such as “reeducation” classes. Dozens of political prisoners remain in Cuban prisons, according to respected human rights groups on the island. These groups estimate there are many more political prisoners whose cases they cannot document because the government does not allow independent national or international human rights groups to access its prisons. Brothers Marcos Maikel and Antonio Michel Lima Cruz—members of a human rights group in Holguín called Pedro Luis Boitel—were arrested in December 2010 and sentenced in a closed, summary trial in May 2011 to three and two years in prison, respectively. Accused of insulting national symbols and causing public disorder, their family said the charges were fabricated to punish the brothers for their human rights work. Antonio Michel has developed a serious kidney infection and prostate condition during his imprisonment, ailments that his family attributes to unhygienic prison conditions. They said his suffering has been exacerbated by inadequate medical treatment. Both men are still in prison. Rogelio Tavío López—a member of a dissident group called the Unión Patriótica de Cuba—was detained on March 2, 2012, in Guantanamo province after organizing a gathering to protest the detention of a fellow dissident and to call for greater political freedoms. His wife said he was arrested without judicial orders and has since been held in a prison in Guantanamo province without being brought to trial. Arbitrary Detentions and Short-Term Imprisonment In addition to political convictions, the Cuban government has increasingly relied on arbitrary detention since the previous UPR in 2009 to harass and intimidate individuals who exercise their fundamental rights. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation—an independent human rights group that the government views as illegal—received reports of 2,074 arbitrary detentions by security forces in 2010, 4,123 in 2011, and 5,105 from January to September of 2012. The detentions are often used preemptively to prevent individuals from participating in meetings or events viewed as critical of the government, such as peaceful marches, meetings to discuss politics, or human rights workshops. Many dissidents are subjected to beatings and threats as they are detained, even though they make no attempts at resistance. Security officers virtually never present arrest orders to justify the detentions and threaten detainees with criminal sentences if they continue to participate in “counterrevolutionary” activities. Victims of such arrests are held incommunicado for a period ranging from several hours to several days, often at police stations. In some cases, they are given an official warning, which prosecutors may later use in criminal trials to show a pattern of delinquent behavior. Dissidents said these warnings are aimed at discouraging them from participating in future activities seen as critical of the government. Their families are not notified that they have been detained, generating a sense of terror from not knowing where they are. More than 80 women from Damas de Blanco (Ladies in White)—a human rights group consisting of wives, mothers, and daughters of political prisoners—were detained on March 18 when they attempted to stage a peaceful procession on the anniversary of a 2003 crackdown by the government. On July 24, at least 40 people were arbitrarily detained in Havana at the funeral of dissident Oswaldo Payá, who died in a car accident. Police officers broke up the nonviolent procession and beat participants despite the fact that they offered no resistance. The detainees were taken to aprison encampment known as Tarara, where they were held incommunicado for approximately 30 hours before being released without charge. Freedom of Expression
In line with its rejection of the recommendation to “lift restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and association, including restrictions on the media that are not in accordance with ICCPR,” the government maintains a media monopoly on the island, which ensures that freedom of expression is virtually nonexistent. This clearly contradicts Cuba’s international human rights obligations. The government controls all media outlets in Cuba and access to outside information is highly restricted. Only a tiny fraction of Cubans have the chance to read independently published articles and blogs because of the high cost of and limited access to the internet. Although a small number of independent journalists and bloggers manage to write articles for foreign websites or independent blogs, they must publish their work through back channels, such as illegal internet connections. Independent journalists and bloggers are subjected to public smear campaigns, short and long-term detention, and physical abuse by police and state security agents. Oftentimes their cameras, recorders, and other equipment are confiscated by authorities. According to the independent group of journalists Hablemos Press, 19 journalists were arbitrarily detained in September 2012, including Calixto Ramón Martínez Arias. Martínez, who had previously reported on issues critical of the government and was detained on September 16 while reporting a story. At the time of this writing, he remains in detention without charge. The Cuban government uses selective allocations of press credentials and visas, which are required by foreign journalists to report from the island, to control coverage of the island and punish media outlets seen as overly critical of the regime. For example, in anticipation of the March 2012 visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Cuba, the government denied visas to journalists from El Pais and El Nuevo Herald, newspapers whose reporting it had previously criticized for presenting a negative image of Cuba. Human Rights Defenders
In line with its rejection of the recommendation to “implement legal safeguards to ensure protection of human rights defenders against abuse of provisions for criminal prosecution,” the Cuban government has continued to refuse to recognize human rights monitoring as a legitimate activity and to deny legal status to local human rights groups. Meanwhile, government authorities harass, assault and imprison human rights defenders who attempt to document abuses. In the weeks leading up to and during the Pope’s visit to Cuba, authorities detained, beat, and threatened hundreds of dissidents. On March 14, 2012, security officers assaulted and arrested 13 people who had sought refuge in a Catholic church in Havana while demanding respect for human rights. Leticia Ramos—a member of Ladies in White—was arbitrarily detained three times in the weeks preceding the Pope’s visit and was beaten so severely by police that they broke one of her ribs, she said. She was warned not to try to travel to Havana for the Pope’s visit. Travel Restrictions and Family Separation
The Cuban government forbids the country's citizens from leaving or returning to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is often denied to those it views as “detractors.” For example, acclaimed blogger Yoani Sánchez, who has been critical of the government, has been denied the right to leave the island at least 19 times since 2008, including in February 2012, after she had been granted a visa to travel to Brazil for a documentary screening. The Cuban government uses forced family separation to punish defectors and silence critics. The government frequently bars citizens engaged in authorized travel from taking their children with them overseas, essentially holding children hostage to guarantee their parents' return. The government restricts the movement of citizens within Cuba by enforcing a 1997 law known as Decree 217. Designed to limit migration to Havana, the decree requires Cubans to obtain government permission before moving to the country's capital. It is often used to prevent dissidents traveling to Havana to attend meetings and to harass dissidents from other parts of Cuba who live in the capital. Forced Exile The death of political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo in February 2010, which followed his 85-day hunger strike, and the subsequent hunger strike by dissident Guillermo Fariñas created pressure on the Cuban government to release the remaining political prisoners from the “group of 75” (the 75 human rights defenders, journalists, and other dissidents who had been sentenced to long prison terms in a massive crackdown in 2003). Yet while the final prisoners from the “group of 75” were released in 2011, the majority were forced to choose between ongoing prison sentences and forced exile. Since that time, dozens of other prominent dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders have been forced to choose between exile and ongoing harassment or even imprisonment. Prison Conditions
Before implementing the accepted recommendations made by China and Iran to “share experiences and good practices regarding the treatment of prisoners,” the Cuban government should address the dire conditions of its overcrowded, unhygienic, and unhealthy prisons, which are currently leading to extensive malnutrition and illness. Prisoners who criticize the government, refuse to participate in ideological "reeducation," or engage in hunger strikes and other forms of protest are often subjected to extended solitary confinement, beatings, restrictions on family visits, and denial of medical care. Prisoners have no effective complaint mechanism to seek redress, giving prison authorities total impunity. On January 19, 2012, Wilman Villar Mendoza died after a 50-day hunger strike in prison, which he initiated to protest his unjust trial and inhumane prison conditions. Villar Mendoza had been detained in November 2011 in Contramaestre after participating in a peaceful demonstration calling for greater political freedoms. He was sentenced to four years in prison for “contempt” in a trial in which he had no lawyer and which lasted less than an hour. After beginning his hunger strike, he was stripped naked and placed in solitary confinement in a cold cell. He was transferred to a hospital in Santiago de Cuba only days before he died. The United States Embargo The United States' economic embargo on Cuba, in place for more than half a century, continues to impose indiscriminate hardship on the Cuban people and has done nothing to improve human rights in Cuba. Recommendations to the Cuban Government in Accordance with Established Principles of International Human Rights Law Immediately release all political prisoners. Cease short-term detentions, threats, harassment, acts of repudiation, and other repressive measures against human rights defenders, independent journalists, and other dissidents. Respect the due process rights of detainees, including the right to access legal counsel, the right to be brought before a judge without delay, and the right to a fair trial in cases where there are criminal proceedings. Allow individuals to assemble and express opinions, irrespective of whether they are deemed critical of the government. Eliminate the crime of social dangerousness (peligrosidad social) from the Criminal Code, the National Protection Law, and other overly broad, subjective laws that violate international law on freedom of expression and opinion and effectively criminalize dissent. Ratify the core international human rights treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—which the Cuban government signed in February 2008. End broad travel restrictions that limit the right of Cubans to leave the island and travel freely within the island (rights restricted through Decree 217). Stop arbitrary denials of travel visas to individuals who have expressed opinions that are deemed critical of the government. Allow human rights defenders, journalists, and other dissidents forced into exile to return to Cuba and enjoy their fundamental freedoms without the threat of imprisonment or other reprisals. Remove arbitrary restrictions preventing Cubans from obtaining access to the internet. End censorship of websites seen as critical to the government. Allow nongovernmental human rights organizations the ability to travel to Cuba, meet with human rights defenders and dissident groups, visit prisons, and conduct research without risk of being detained or expelled from the island.
|
HRW, 4/18/13 (Human Rights Watch is an international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights, “Universal Periodic Review: HRW Submission on Cuba”, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/18/universal-periodic-review-hrw-submission-cuba)
|
Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. the government continued to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile Cuba rejected all recommendations addressing the arbitrary detentions of political prisoners, the lack of protection of human rights defenders, and restrictions on freedom of expression. the government has increasingly relied upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move about freely the government continues to sentence dissidents to long-term prison sentences in closed, summary trials, or hold them for extended periods without charge. Cubans who dare to criticize the government risk criminal charges – which is in clear contradiction with Cuba’s international human rights obligations – and will not enjoy due process guarantees, such as the right to fair and public hearings by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. In practice, courts are “subordinated” to the executive and legislative branches, thus denying meaningful judicial protection. Political prisoners’ are routinely denied parole after completing the minimum required sentence as punishment for refusing to participate in ideological activities such as “reeducation” classes. Dozens of political prisoners remain in Cuban prisons, according to respected human rights groups on the island. These groups estimate there are many more political prisoners whose cases they cannot document because the government does not allow independent national or international human rights groups to access its prisons. In addition to political convictions, the Cuban government has increasingly relied on arbitrary detention since the previous UPR in 2009 to harass and intimidate individuals who exercise their fundamental rights. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation—an independent human rights group that the government views as illegal—received reports of 2,074 arbitrary detentions by security forces in 2010, 4,123 in 2011, and 5,105 from January to September of 2012. The detentions are often used preemptively to prevent individuals from participating in meetings or events viewed as critical of the government, such as peaceful marches, meetings to discuss politics, or human rights workshops. Many dissidents are subjected to beatings and threats as they are detained, even though they make no attempts at resistance. Security officers virtually never present arrest orders to justify the detentions and threaten detainees with criminal sentences if they continue to participate in “counterrevolutionary” activities. Victims of such arrests are held incommunicado for a period ranging from several hours to several days, often at police stations. In some cases, they are given an official warning, which prosecutors may later use in criminal trials to show a pattern of delinquent behavior. Dissidents said these warnings are aimed at discouraging them from participating in future activities seen as critical of the government. Their families are not notified that they have been detained, generating a sense of terror from not knowing where they are. In line with its rejection of the recommendation to “lift restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and association, including restrictions on the media that are not in accordance with ICCPR,” the government maintains a media monopoly on the island, which ensures that freedom of expression is virtually nonexistent. This clearly contradicts Cuba’s international human rights obligations. The government controls all media outlets in Cuba and access to outside information is highly restricted. Only a tiny fraction of Cubans have the chance to read independently published articles and blogs because of the high cost of and limited access to the internet. Although a small number of independent journalists and bloggers manage to write articles for foreign websites or independent blogs, they must publish their work through back channels, such as illegal internet connections. Independent journalists and bloggers are subjected to public smear campaigns, short and long-term detention, and physical abuse by police and state security agents. the Cuban government has continued to refuse to recognize human rights monitoring as a legitimate activity and to deny legal status to local human rights groups. Meanwhile, government authorities harass, assault and imprison human rights defenders who attempt to document abuses. The Cuban government forbids the country's citizens from leaving or returning to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is often denied to those it views as “detractors.” The Cuban government uses forced family separation to punish defectors and silence critics. The government frequently bars citizens engaged in authorized travel from taking their children with them overseas, essentially holding children hostage to guarantee their parents' return. The government restricts the movement of citizens within Cuba by enforcing a 1997 law known as Decree 217. Designed to limit migration to Havana, the decree requires Cubans to obtain government permission before moving to the country's capital. It is often used to prevent dissidents traveling to Havana to attend meetings and to harass dissidents from other parts of Cuba who live in the capital Prisoners who criticize the government, refuse to participate in ideological "reeducation," or engage in hunger strikes and other forms of protest are often subjected to extended solitary confinement, beatings, restrictions on family visits, and denial of medical care. Prisoners have no effective complaint mechanism to seek redress, giving prison authorities total impunity
|
Cuba has major human rights abuses
| 14,463 | 34 | 5,887 | 2,178 | 6 | 861 | 0.002755 | 0.395317 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,609 |
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.
|
Lloyd 10 [Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily, 8/24/10, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/]
|
enabling groups to stay in Cuba we'd be helping democracy in Cuba 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. American visitors would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist
|
Lifting the travel ban leads to Cuban democratization
| 1,552 | 53 | 371 | 241 | 8 | 55 | 0.033195 | 0.228216 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,610 |
It’s great that President Obama is easing curbs on family travel to Cuba, so that Cuban-Americans can visit Cuba freely and remit money to their relatives freely. That’s long overdue. But Obama should go much further and lift all travel restrictions on Cuba, and lift the trade embargo as well. Isolating Cuba has failed catastrophically — it has simply impoverished ordinary Cubans and prevented the normal processes that erode dictatorship. We’ve also given the Castro brothers a nationalist excuse for their own repression and economic incompetence. Think for a moment which are the countries that we have isolated the most in recent decades. That’s right — North Korea and Cuba. Those are exactly the same countries that have been most successful in preserving Communist dictatorships; we’ve inadvertently done a favor to Kim Jong Il and the Castros. It’s always the most isolated countries — you can add Turkmenistan to the list — that are most successful at resisting international pressure for pluralism, human rights and democracy, so it’s mystifying that we somehow think that isolating a bad regime is punishing it. It’s hard to think of an initiative toward Cuba that backfired more than the Bay of Pigs invasion. But suppose we invaded Cuba not with gunmen but with tourists — American tourists who reacted to Havana not with threats but with mirth (and outrage at the scratchy toilet paper). Unleash hordes of Americans complaining bitterly about the lack of wifi connections, or asking pointedly why the cars are so old and the buildings so dilapidated, and the Castros are in trouble. We need more interaction between Cubans and Americans, not less. So let’s hope that the relaxation on curbs toward Cuba is just a first step. For too many decades, we’ve simply been helping to keep Fidel in power. You agree?
|
Kristof, Nicholas D, 2009 (Nicholas Donabet Kristof (born April 27, 1959) is an American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He has written an op-ed column for The New York Times since November 2001., “Invade Cuba — with tourists”, http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/invade-cuba-with-tourists/)
|
Obama should lift all travel restrictions on Cuba, Isolating Cuba has failed catastrophically — it has prevented the normal processes that erode dictatorship. We’ve also given the Castro brothers a nationalist excuse for their own repression and economic incompetence. Think for a moment which are the countries that we have isolated the most in recent decades are the same countries that have been most successful in preserving Communist dictatorships; we’ve done a favor to the Castros. It’s always the most isolated countries — that are most successful at resisting international pressure for pluralism, human rights and democracy suppose we invaded Cuba with tourists who reacted to Havana with mirth Unleash hordes of Americans complaining about the lack of wifi , or asking why the cars are so old and the buildings so dilapidated, and the Castros are in trouble. We need more interaction between Cubans and Americans, not less.
|
American Tourists in Cuba promote Democracy there
| 1,824 | 49 | 934 | 302 | 7 | 149 | 0.023179 | 0.493377 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,611 |
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.
|
Lloyd 10 [Delia Lloyd, Politics Daily, 8/24/10, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/]
|
Isolating Cuba provided the Castro brothers with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's problems the United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information another potential catalyst for democratization
|
Isolation from the US strengthens anti-democratic forces in Cuba
| 492 | 64 | 247 | 66 | 9 | 33 | 0.136364 | 0.5 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,612 |
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.¶ 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.
|
Tampa Tribune 13 [Tampa Tribune Editorials, Ease travel restrictions to Cuba to boost freedom, 6/9/13, http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-editorials/ease-travel-restrictions-to-cuba-to-boost-freedom-20130609/]
|
There is a quick way for our nation to help overwhelm Cuba’s censorship and propaganda. Simply allow Americans to travel more easily to Cuba. Having more Americans visit would boost capitalism and This can be done without the political firefight of eliminating the 50-year-old Cuban embargo 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 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.
|
Tourism solves corruption – leads to democratization
| 1,992 | 52 | 733 | 312 | 7 | 115 | 0.022436 | 0.36859 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,613 |
The environmental movement is treading water and slowly drowning. There is abundant evidence that our efforts -- and they have been formidable, even heroic -- have largely failed. After 30 years of exceedingly hard work and tremendous sacrifice, we have failed to stem the tide of environmental deterioration. Make no mistake: our efforts have had a beneficial effect. Things would be much worse today if our work of the past 30 years had never occurred. However, the question is, Have our efforts been adequate? Have we succeeded? Have we even come close to stemming the tide of destruction? Has our vision been commensurate with the scale and scope of the problems we set out to solve? To those questions, if we are honest with ourselves, we must answer No. What, then, are we to do? This article is intended to provoke thought and debate, and certainly is not offered as the last word on anything. Openness. Open, democratic decision-making will be an essential component of any successful strategy. After the Berlin wall fell, we got a glimpse of what had happened to the environment and the people under the Soviet dictatorship. The Soviets had some of the world's strictest environmental laws on the books, but without the ability for citizens to participate in decisions, or blow the whistle on egregious violations, those laws meant nothing. For the same reason that science cannot find reliable answers without open peer review, bureaucracies (whether public or private) cannot achieve beneficial results without active citizen participation in decisions and strong protection for whistle-blowers. Errors remain uncorrected, narrow perspectives and selfish motives are rewarded, and the general welfare will not usually be promoted. The fundamental importance of democratic decision-making means that our strategies must not focus on legislative battles. Clearly, we must contend for the full power of government to be harnessed toward achieving our goals, but this is quite different from focusing our efforts on lobbying campaigns to convince legislators to do the right thing from time to time. Lobbying can mobilise people for the short term, but mobilising is not the same as organising. During the past 30 years, the environmental movement has had some notable successes mobilising people, but few successes building long-term organisations that people can live their lives around and within (the way many families in the '30s, '40s and '50s lived their lives around and within their unions' struggles). The focus of our strategies must be on building organisations that involve people and, in that process, finding new allies. The power to govern would naturally flow from those efforts. This question of democracy is not trivial. It is deep. And it deeply divides the environmental movement, or rather movements. Many members of the mainstream environmental movement tend to view ordinary people as the enemy (for example, they love to say, “We have met the enemy and he is us”.). They fundamentally don't trust people to make good decisions, so they prefer to leave ordinary people out of the equation. Instead, they scheme with lawyers and experts behind closed doors, then announce their “solution”. Then they lobby Congress in hopes that Congress will impose this latest “solution” on us all. Naturally, such people don't develop a big following, and their “solutions” -- even when Congress has been willing to impose them -- have often proven to be expensive, burdensome and ultimately unsuccessful. Experts. In the modern era, open democratic decision-making is essential to survival. Only by informing people, and trusting their decisions, can we survive as a human society. Our technologies are now too complex and too powerful to be left solely in the hands of a few experts. If they are allowed to make decisions behind closed doors, small groups of experts can make fatal errors. One thinks of the old Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) justifying above-ground nuclear weapons testing. In the early 1950s, their atomic fallout was showering the population with strontium-90, a highly radioactive element that masquerades as calcium when it is taken into the body. Once in the body, strontium-90 moves into the bones, where it irradiates the bone marrow, causing cancer. The AEC's best and brightest studied this problem in detail and argued in secret memos that the only way strontium-90 could get into humans would be through cattle grazing on contaminated grass. They calculated the strontium-90 intake of the cows, and the amount that would end up in the cows' bones. On that basis, the AEC reported to Congress in 1953, “The only potential hazard to human beings would be the ingestion of bone splinters which might be intermingled with muscle tissue in butchering and cutting of the meat. An insignificant amount would enter the body in this fashion.” Thus, they concluded, strontium-90 was not endangering people. The following year, Congress declassified many of the AEC's deliberations. As soon as these memos became public, scientists and citizens began asking, “What about the cows' milk?” The AEC scientists had no response. They had neglected to ask whether strontium-90, mimicking calcium, would contaminate cows' milk, which of course it did. Secrecy in government and corporate decision-making continues to threaten the well-being of everyone on the planet as new technologies are deployed at an accelerating pace after inadequate consideration of their effects. Open, democratic decision-making is no longer a luxury. In the modern world, it is a necessity for human survival.
|
Montague 98 - [Peter Montague, co-director Environmental Research Foundation and publisher of Rachael’s Environment and Health News, 14 October 1998 http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/337/20135]
|
After 30 years we have failed to stem the tide of environmental deterioration Open, democratic decision-making will be an essential component of any successful strategy After the Berlin wall fell, we got a glimpse of what had happened to the environment and the people under the Soviet dictatorship without the ability for citizens to participate in decisions those laws meant nothing bureaucracies cannot achieve beneficial results without active citizen participation in decisions and strong protection for whistle-blowers. Errors remain uncorrected, narrow perspectives and selfish motives are rewarded, and the general welfare will not usually be promoted The fundamental importance of democratic decision-making means that our strategies must not focus on legislative battles. Clearly, we must contend for the full power of government to be harnessed toward achieving our goals open democratic decision-making is essential to survival Only by informing people, and trusting their decisions, can we survive as a human society. Our technologies are now too complex and too powerful to be left solely in the hands of a few experts. If they are allowed to make decisions behind closed doors, small groups of experts can make fatal errors One of the old AEC) justifying above-ground nuclear weapons testing In the early 1950s, their atomic fallout was showering the population with a highly radioactive element that masquerades as calcium when it is taken into the body Secrecy in government and corporate decision-making continues to threaten the well-being of everyone on the planet as new technologies are deployed at an accelerating pace after inadequate consideration of their effects. Open, democratic decision-making is no longer a luxury. In the modern world, it is a necessity for human survival
|
Democracy is key to check extinction.
| 5,616 | 37 | 1,804 | 894 | 6 | 276 | 0.006711 | 0.308725 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,614 |
The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights. These values are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further developed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which enshrines a host of political rights and civil liberties underpinning meaningful democracies. The link between democracy and human rights is captured in article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” The rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and subsequent human rights instruments covering group rights (e.g. indigenous peoples, minorities, people with disabilities) are equally essential for democracy as they ensure inclusivity for all groups, including equality and equity in respect of access to civil and political rights. For several years, the UN General Assembly and the former Commission on Human Rights endeavored to draw on international human rights instruments to promote a common understanding of the principles, norms, standards and values that are the basis of democracy, with a view to guiding Member States in developing domestic democratic traditions and institutions; and in meeting their commitments to human rights, democracy and development. This led to the articulation of several landmark resolutions of the former Commission on Human Rights. In 2000, the Commission recommended a series of important legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy (resolution 2000/47); and in 2002, the Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy: Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms Freedom of association Freedom of expression and opinion Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations The separation of powers The independence of the judiciary Transparency and accountability in public administration Free, independent and pluralistic media In 2007, the Secretary-General’s Policy Committee, the highest decision-making body within the UN Secretariat, requested the development of an Organization-wide strategy that further defines the UN’s approach to supporting democracy, anchored in the three pillars of the UN’s work, namely, peace and security, development, and human rights. The Secretary-General tasked the Democracy Working Group of the Executive Committee on Peace and Security — established in May 2007 — to ensure regular follow-up on the issue of democracy and, more specifically, on strategy development. Addressing democracy deficits Democracy deficits, weak institutions and poor leadership are among the main challenges to the effective realization of human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) seek to address these challenges through its advisory services and technical cooperation programmes, which focus on strengthening the legal framework for human rights protection (institutional and legal reform); capacity building; empowering vulnerable and disadvantaged segments of the society; advocacy, awareness raising and human rights education. In transitional democracies and countries emerging from conflicts, OHCHR collaborates with national governments and actors to build a strong and independent judiciary, a representative, efficient and accountable parliament, an independent and effective national human rights institution, and a vibrant civil society. Promoting democratic governance Democratic governance, as supported by the United Nations emphasizes the role of individuals and peoples — all of them, without any exclusion — in shaping their human growth and the human development of societies. But individuals can only make such contributions when their individual potential is unleashed through the enjoyment of human rights. In 2011, UNDP helped more than 130 countries and devoted US$1.5 billion in resources to democratic governance, making UNDP the world's largest provider of democratic governance assistance. UNDP supports one in three parliaments in the developing world and an election every two weeks. UNDP also works to foster partnerships and share ways to promote participation, accountability and effectiveness at all levels, aiming to build effective and capable states that are accountable and transparent, inclusive and responsive — from elections to participation of women and the poor. OHCHR promotes democratic governance by providing sustained support to democratic institutions, including national actors and institutions involved in the administration of justice; enhancing the capacity of parliamentarians to engage in human rights protection, supporting civil society and facilitating electoral and constitution building processes. Supporting transitional democracies Recent popular uprisings across the Arab region were led by youth, women, and men from all social strata and are opening greater space for civic engagement in decision making. The calls for transformational change are a popular cry for choice, participation, transparency and respect for people’s legitimate quest for democratic space. These events have reaffirmed the pivotal importance of democratic governance as a system premised on inclusion, participation, non-discrimination and accountability. In transitional democracies and countries emerging from conflict, OHCHR collaborates with national governments and other actors to confront the past in order to rebuild public confidence and restore peace and the rule of law. With a focus on combating impunity, OHCHR has actively supported transitional justice programmes in more than 20 countries around the world over the past decade. Its support includes ensuring that human rights and transitional justice considerations are reflected in peace agreements; engaging in the design and implementation of inclusive national consultations on transitional justice mechanisms; supporting the establishment of truth-seeking processes, judicial accountability mechanisms, and reparations programmes; and enhancing institutional reform. Guiding national and regional efforts Two expert seminars organized by OHCHR in 2002 and 2005 shed light on the main challenges to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, including: Deepening poverty Threats to human security The infringements of individual rights and impediments to the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms Erosions of the rule of law in contexts such as counter-terrorism Illegal occupation involving the use of force The escalation of armed conflicts Unequal access to justice by disadvantaged groups Impunity The reports of these seminars stand as a guide for developing national and regional frameworks and strategies for the realization of democracy as a holistic concept based on a strict adherence to human rights and the principles of the rule of law. Moreover, OHCHR has published a compilation of relevant documents and texts which serves as a reference and analytical tool for Constitution making, the revision/drafting of national legislations and strategies to consolidate human rights and democratic foundations. More recently, in March 2012, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution titled “Human rights, democracy and the rule of law,” which reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The Council called upon States to make continuous efforts to strengthen the rule of law and promote democracy through a wide range of measures. It also requested the OHCHR, in consultation with States, national human rights institutions, civil society, relevant intergovernmental bodies and international organizations, to draft a study on challenges, lessons learned and best practices in securing democracy and the rule of law from a human rights perspective OHCHR also works to underline the close relationship between human rights and democracy within the United Nations system. In collaboration with the UN Department of Political Affairs and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), OHCHR organized a ‘Round Table on Democracy and Human Rights’ in New York in 2011. The round table discussed democracy movements and their characteristics in a number of States, including those involved in the Arab Spring. It underlined the importance of working with regional and sub-regional organizations when dealing with unconstitutional changes of Government, and when promoting democratic movements and democracies more generally. OHCHR also seeks to partner with intergovernmental democracy-promoting organizations such as l’Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and regional intergovernmental organizations. In addition, the Office provides dedicated support to the UN Democracy Fund, advising the decision making process on programme funding criteria and on project proposals.
|
UN, 2012 (The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims include promoting and facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedoms, democracy, and the achievement of lasting world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions, “Democracy and Human Rights”, http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/human_rights.shtml)
|
human rights are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the protection and effective realization of human rights. The link between democracy and human rights is captured in article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights human rights are equally essential for democracy Democracy deficits, weak institutions and poor leadership are among the main challenges to the effective realization of human rights. Democratic governance emphasizes the role of individuals and peoples — all of them, without any exclusion — in shaping their human growth and the human development of societies. But individuals can only make such contributions when their individual potential is unleashed through the enjoyment of human rights. democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing close relationship between human rights and democracy
|
Democracy promotes Human Rights
| 9,713 | 31 | 927 | 1,386 | 4 | 134 | 0.002886 | 0.096681 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,615 |
"Human rights are the birthright of all human beings. The protection and promotion of these rights is the first responsibility of every government" said Minister O'Donnell this evening. The Minister, who has special responsibility for human rights, was speaking to the Dail in a debate marking the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She said that a meaningful human rights policy cannot exist in isolation. "We need to ensure that awareness and vindication of human rights permeates the whole of our foreign policy including humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, conflict prevention and crisis management, peacekeeping and asylum issues". Referring to asylum-seekers and refugees, Minister O'Donnell said that there can be no place for racism in Ireland. An additional £ 90,000 will be spent next year on increased activities to combat racism and xenophobia. "I am confident that we are moving towards the establishment of a credible system. Asylum-seekers and refugees now ask from us what we received from others in the past - security and the chance of a better life". The Minister welcomed the recent agreement on multi-annual funding for the aid budget. " Far from the target of 0.45% of GNP being abandoned, we have put it within reach". The total amount of £ 400 million committed for spending over the three years will bring Ireland from twelfth into eighth place in the table of donor generosity. The Minister said that the new approach will enable funds to be guaranteed in advance "The aid practitioners who work at the coalface of the aid delivery process are unanimous in the view that predictability of funding is the single most important factor in terms of effective programme planning". The Minister paid tribute to the many NGOs and individuals active in the area of human rights. She said that the new Human Rights Commission, as agreed under the Good Friday Agreement, would greatly increase human rights awareness in Ireland. Legislation is to be published "shortly" to establish the Human Rights Commission and this, together with our new anti-discrimination legislation "will shore up the system of protection of human rights into the next century".
|
DFA, 1998 ( The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the Foreign Policy Department of the Irish government, “"Moral obligation to advance human rights at home and abroad" O'Donnell”, http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=26895)
|
Human rights are the birthright of all human beings. The protection and promotion of these rights is the first responsibility of every government" a meaningful human rights policy cannot exist in isolation. "We need to ensure that awareness and vindication of human rights permeates the whole of our foreign policy including humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, conflict prevention and crisis management, peacekeeping and asylum issues"
|
We have a moral obligation to promote human rights abroad
| 2,231 | 57 | 449 | 358 | 10 | 64 | 0.027933 | 0.178771 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,616 |
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom to own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom House''s 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast, only 20 of the world''s 73 nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24¶ The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on the other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men and women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."¶
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
the spread of democracy enhances lives by promoting individual liberty freedom of expression conscience to own private property Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic politics governments accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual liberty The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian calculations increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human potential which will benefit all of humankind
|
Democracy solves personal freedoms – that means you vote aff no matter what side of the fence you fall on
| 2,317 | 105 | 606 | 366 | 20 | 93 | 0.054645 | 0.254098 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,617 |
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime. The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29¶ There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic political systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
America should spread liberal democracy the citizens of liberal democracies are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest These findings are supported by many studies Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian Soviet Union, P R C Nazi Germany Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge Democracies have virtually never massacred their own citizens Democratic political systems constrain the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass murders Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed openly critics need not stage violent revolutions governments will not use violence to repress
|
Democracy solves genocides – prefer our reverse causal, empirically supported evidence
| 2,320 | 87 | 748 | 343 | 11 | 109 | 0.03207 | 0.317784 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,618 |
The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example, articulated this view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than this one.26 The short response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand for liberty among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important, most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives political systems founded on principles opposed to liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer collapse
|
The alternative to democracy is tyranny and economic collapse
| 1,227 | 61 | 177 | 187 | 9 | 27 | 0.048128 | 0.144385 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,619 |
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits. Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last few years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies."33¶ Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the Soviet Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States, leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted double-digit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates in the long term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict that the stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36¶ Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most of the world''s leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United States, Japan, the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s population and 99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property, operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of the world''s output even though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed an Index of Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage and price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries classified as "free" had annual 1980-1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in terms of purchasing power parities) growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was¶ 0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.¶ Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions also happen to be those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for long-term economic growth.¶ A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic reforms.42
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity As democracy spreads more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits Olson points out countries that have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies democracies perform better than autocracies Two reasons democracies- are more likely to have market economies market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated democratic governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms
|
Democracy solves econ – prefer our reverse causal, empirically supported evidence
| 5,698 | 81 | 824 | 860 | 11 | 117 | 0.012791 | 0.136047 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,620 |
Does democracy cause peace? The empirical evidence in favor of the proposition that democratic states have not initiated and are not likely to initiate interstate wars against each other is substantial, especially when compared with that which could be brought to bear by specialists in the 1970s. Criticism of this evidence has so far met with reasonably persuasive counterarguments by the defenders of the proposition. Despite a common opinion to the contrary, the theoretical bases for the hypothesis regarding the absence of war between democratic states are highly developed and may to some extent be complementary as well as competitive. For example, some factors may make democratic states unlikely to become involved in serious, militarized disputes in the first place, while other factors enable them to resolve serious disputes without warfare when they do occur. No scientific evidence is entirely definitive, and the greater number of democratic states in the post–Cold War era may increase opportunities for conflicts that will cast grave doubts on the democratic peace proposition. But for the moment at least, well-developed theoretical bases reinforce a lengthy list of systematic empirical analyses in support of that proposition. Moreover, the multiple streams of arguments and evidence supporting the proposition are highly diverse in character: epistemological (Rummel 1975), philosophical (Doyle 1986), formal (Bueno de Mesquita & Lalman 1992; B Bueno de Mesquita, R Siverson, unpublished data), historical (Weart 1994, Ray 1995, Owen 1994), experimental (Mintz & Geva 1993), anthropological (Ember et al 1992, Crawford 1994), psychological (Kegley & Hermann 1995), economic (Brawley 1993, Weede 1996b), political (Gaubatz 1991), and statistical (Ray & Russett 1996, p. 458). Perhaps, then, the more defensible of the two possible definitive answers to the question "Does democracy cause peace?" is "Yes."
|
Ray ‘1 - Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University (James Lee, “DOES DEMOCRACY CAUSE PEACE?” February 1, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm) //DK
|
empirical evidence in favor of the proposition that democratic states have not initiated and are not likely to initiate interstate wars against each other is substantial theoretical bases for the hypothesis regarding the absence of war between democratic states are highly developed and may to some extent be complementary as well as competitive some factors may make democratic states unlikely to become involved in serious, militarized disputes while other factors enable them to resolve serious disputes without warfare well-developed theoretical bases reinforce a lengthy list of systematic empirical analyses in support of that proposition. Moreover, the multiple streams of arguments and evidence supporting the proposition are highly diverse
|
Democracies promote peace – solve disputes without warfare.
| 1,926 | 59 | 748 | 287 | 8 | 108 | 0.027875 | 0.376307 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,621 |
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of democracy will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war on other democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and "democracy" used-has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations that can be made about international relations."51 One scholar argues that "the absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations."52 If the number of democracies in the international system continues to grow, the number of potential conflicts that might escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between democracies and nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in the long run an international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would gradually enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
the spread of democracy will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war Democracies do not wage war on other democracies the absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations in the long run an international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful world
|
Democracy solves war – prefer our reverse causal, empirically supported evidence
| 1,038 | 80 | 355 | 158 | 11 | 58 | 0.06962 | 0.367089 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,622 |
The normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude wars between democracies. One version of this argument contends that liberal states do not fight other liberal states because to do so would be to violate the principles of liberalism. Liberal states only wage war when it advances the liberal ends of increased individual freedom. A liberal state cannot advance liberal ends by fighting another liberal state, because that state already upholds the principles of liberalism. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for wars between liberal democracies.59 A second version of the normative explanation claims that democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution. This norm applies between and within democratic states. Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence, and they expect that other democracies will resolve inter-democratic international disputes peacefully.60
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
A liberal state cannot advance liberal ends by fighting another liberal state democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for wars between liberal democracies democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence
|
No war – democracies have no justification to fight each other
| 997 | 62 | 309 | 142 | 11 | 42 | 0.077465 | 0.295775 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,623 |
Institutional/structural explanations for the democratic peace contend that democratic decision-making procedures and institutional constraints prevent democracies from waging war on one another. At the most general level, democratic leaders are constrained by the public, which is sometimes pacific and generally slow to mobilize for war. In most democracies, the legislative and executive branches check the war-making power of each other. These constraints may prevent democracies from launching wars. When two democracies confront one another internationally, they are not likely to rush into war. Their leaders will have more time to resolve disputes peacefully.61 A different sort of institutional argument suggests that democratic processes and freedom of speech make democracies better at avoiding myths and misperceptions that cause wars.62
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
democratic leaders are constrained by the public, legislative and executive branches check the war-making power of each other When two democracies confront one another internationally, they are not likely to rush into war eaders will have more time to resolve disputes peacefully
|
No war – democracies have checks in place to avoid rushing into war with each other
| 849 | 83 | 279 | 118 | 16 | 42 | 0.135593 | 0.355932 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,624 |
Some studies have attempted to test the relative power of the normative and institutional/structural explanations of the democratic peace.63 It might make more sense, however, to specify how the two work in combination or separately under different conditions. For example, in liberal democracies liberal norms and democratic processes probably work in tandem to synergistically produce the democratic peace.64 Liberal states are unlikely to even contemplate war with one another. They thus will have few crises and wars. In illiberal or semiliberal democracies, norms play a lesser role and crises are more likely, but democratic institutions and processes may still make wars between illiberal democracies rare. Finally, state-level factors like norms and domestic structures may interact with international-systemic factors to prevent wars between democracies. If democracies are better at information-processing, they may be better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would be foolish. Thus the logic of the democratic peace may explain why democracies sometimes behave according to realist (systemic) predictions.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
in liberal democracies norms and processes work in tandem to produce the democratic peace Liberal states are unlikely to contemplate war with one another They will have few crises In illiberal norms play a lesser role and crises are more likely If democracies are better at information-processing, they may be better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would be foolish
|
No war – multiple checks and barriers
| 1,152 | 37 | 403 | 162 | 7 | 62 | 0.04321 | 0.382716 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,625 |
Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with one another. In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that "constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another."54 Subsequent statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.56¶ Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of peace with other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with nondemocracies.57 There are, however, several scholars who argue that democracies are inherently less likely to go to war than other types of states.58 The evidence for this claim remains in dispute, however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than to enlarge the democratic zone of peace.¶
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
Many studies have found there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with one another statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another democracies are inherently less likely to go to war than other types of states
|
More proof – democracies do not go to war with one another – prefer our statistically, empirically supported evidence
| 1,279 | 117 | 484 | 202 | 19 | 76 | 0.094059 | 0.376238 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,626 |
Kaplan has written that democracies excite ethnic and nationalist passions, frequently leading to turmoil and violence. Moreover, he claims, they are unable to make the reform necessary for economic progress. Zakaria has little sympathy for authoritarian solutions, but he argues that democracy cannot be manufactured; it requires the centuries-long maturing of societies and institutions in a framework of "constitutional liberalism."¶ Rosenfeld agrees with Zakaria and Kaplan. He argues that you need "the sort of propertied professional middle class it takes a century or two to shape. . . ." The only trouble with this postulate is the historical record. The centuries-long development of propertied middle classes in Europe did not lead to the emergence of liberal ideas in the 1920s and 1930s, but became the breeding ground for Nazi racism and fascism.¶ By contrast, India avoided ethnocide and genocide under democratic electoral rule held well before its extensive middle class emerged. Amid acute poverty, India's democracy has pursued difficult and much-needed free-market reforms. Similar progress in freedom and tolerance can be observed in democratic post-conflict South Africa and in Nicaragua and EI Salvador, two of the hemisphere's poorest countries, which have healed the wounds of protracted civil war in part through the agency of democratic electoral processes. And in the impoverished Philippines, an electoral democracy has deepened the roots of freedom and established a growing economy through tough-minded market reform.¶ The problem with the new-found pessimism about democracy is that it is misplaced. It blames the victim by wrongly ascribing violence and turmoil to the actions of weak new democracies rather than to the military coups or illiberal insurgencies to which they fall prey.¶ A second problem with this skepticism is that it is unjustified. Each year, Freedom House issues a year-end survey of the state of political rights and civil liberties around the world. In 1995, there were 117 democratically elected governments, of which 76 were free. This year's just-released survey finds that while the number of democracies has remained static at 117, the number of free countries has increased to 81. What accounts for this trend? Successive competitive elections, which result in stronger political parties, stimulate debate over policy alternatives and force leaders to face the judgment of public opinion. Moderation and incremental liberalization are the result. In short, trends suggest that what Farced Zakaria calls "illiberal democracies" are in decline.¶ The record of many electoral democracies that have faced ethnic and separatist conflicts and tensions confounds Robert Kaplan's claim that democracy inflames nationalist passions. In Russia, the war in Chechnya ground to a halt under the pressure of voter discontent (President Yeltsin began serious negotiations weeks before the June 1996 elections amid growing popularity of antiwar candidate Aleksandr Lebed). In Moldova, despite civil war in a breakaway region, democratic elections saw the weakening of the appeal of the more extreme nationalist parties. In Ukraine, a combination of elections and federalism has preserved the peace in predominantly Russian Crimea, which many predicted would be an ethnic tinderbox. Even Turkey, which continues to suppress its Kurdish minority and has a poor human rights record, has a military that cannot engage in wanton destruction in part because of the constraints imposed by the democratically elected civilian leadership and a vibrant civil society. In short, restraint, constraint, negotiation and compromise are more likely if leaders know that their policies are subject to regular public review and electoral disapproval.¶ Contrast this with the record of nondemocratic states. Serbia's authoritarian leader has fomented hate-based nationalism and backed proxies in a war against the democratically accountable leaders of Bosnia. The dictatorship in Burma has pursued a relentless war against the Karen minority. And there is the ruthless anti-Kurdish war that has been waged by Saddam Hussein.¶ In the end, the pessimism of the democracy skeptics isn't always so pessimistic. Fareed Zakaria is right to suggest that it is better to "consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism around the globe." But if he examines the record, he will find that authoritarian rulers rarely are enlightened and almost never are willing to countenance constitutional liberalism based on checks and balances and limits on their power. By contrast, the record shows that constitutional liberalism tends to evolve even in weak electoral democracies that don't possess the institutional and civic structures of mature free societies.¶ Despite the doubts of some critics, the United States' promotion of democratic values, civil society and democratic elections pursued vigorously under Presidents Reagan and Clinton has done a great deal of good. It has transformed the political and economic face of Eastern Europe and Latin America. It has brought hundreds of millions of people greater personal liberty and autonomy. It has promoted democratic openings in Asia and Africa.¶ While it is right to take a hard look at what works and what doesn't in the effort to expand the scope of democracy and human liberty, a decade of efforts to promote democratic transitions around the world has not failed, as Stephen Rosenfeld suggests. It has made the world a better place. But more important, the promotion of democracy has increased the prospect that in the years ahead the world will be better still.
|
Karatnycky 97 president of Freedom House, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Program on Transatlantic Relations and managing partner of Myrmidon Group LLC, a New York based consultancy that works with investors and corporations seeking entry into the complex emerging markets of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, founder and co-director of the Ukrainian-Jewish Encounter, frequent contributor to Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the International Herald Tribune, and many other periodicals. He is co-author of three books and co-editor of eight books on Soviet and post-Soviet themes [Adrian Karatnycky, “Still the Bedrock of a Better World”, The Washington Post, December 29 1997, accessed via LexisNexis June 29 2013] SM
|
The problem with the new-found pessimism about democracy is that it is misplaced It blames the victim by wrongly ascribing violence to the actions of weak new democracies rather than to the military coups or illiberal insurgencies to which they fall prey skepticism is unjustified. Successive competitive elections stimulate debate over policy alternatives and force leaders to face the judgment of public opinion incremental liberalization are the result. illiberal democracies" are in decline. restraint, constraint, negotiation and compromise are more likely if leaders know that their policies are subject to regular public review and electoral disapproval Contrast this with the record of nondemocratic states authoritarian rulers rarely are enlightened and almost never are willing to countenance constitutional liberalism based on checks and balances and limits on their power. he United States' promotion of democratic values has done a great deal of good. It has transformed the political and economic face of Eastern Europe and Latin America. . It has made the world a better place the promotion of democracy has increased the prospect that in the years ahead the world will be better still
|
Criticisms of democracy are wrong – history proves democracies are more peaceful and stable than any other governmental form. US demo promo empirically succeed
| 5,704 | 159 | 1,200 | 870 | 24 | 184 | 0.027586 | 0.211494 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,627 |
The Argument: A second criticism of the logic of the democratic peace argues that democracies cannot enjoy a perpetual peace among themselves because there is always a possibility that a democratic state will become nondemocratic. This possibility means that even democracies must be concerned about the potential threat posed by other democracies. John Mearsheimer argues that: "Liberal democracies must therefore worry about relative power among themselves, which is tantamount to saying that each has an incentive to consider aggression against the other to forestall future trouble."77 In other words, the realist logic of anarchy, which posits that states exist in a Hobbesian world of fear, suspicion and potential war, applies even to relations between democracies.78¶ Response: There are four reasons for rejecting claims that fears of democratic backsliding compel democracies to treat other democracies as they would treat any nondemocratic state. First, the historical record shows that mature, stable democracies rarely become autocracies.79¶ Second, democracies are able to recognize and respond to states that are making a transition from democracy to authoritarianism. Democratic states thus can pursue a policy of accommodation toward other democracies, hedge their bets with more cautious policies toward unstable or uncertain democracies, and abandon accommodation when democracies turn into nondemocracies. There is no reason to assume that democracies will become autocracies overnight and then immediately launch attacks on democracies.¶ Third, like some other realist arguments, the claim that states must give priority to preparing for an unlikely dangerous future development rests on flawed logic. It assumes that states must base their foreign policies almost entirely on worst-case scenarios. Similar logic would imply that, for example, citizens in any country should act on the basis of the assumption that domestic law and order might collapse into anarchy and violence.¶ Fourth, the claim that democracies must worry about the relative power of other democracies (which may become autocracies) relies on the same shaky logic that predicts that states cannot cooperate because they need to worry about the relative gains achieved by other states. The relative-gains argument holds that in international politics, cooperation is rare because it often gives greater gains to one state, and these relative disparities in gains can be turned into advantages in power than can be used to threaten the state that gains less.80 The relative-gains argument sometimes assumes that states have high and constant concerns about relative gains. In practice, however, relative-gains concerns vary and are often almost nonexistent.81
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
There are four reasons for rejecting claims that fears of democratic backsliding compel democracies to treat other democracies as they would treat any nondemocratic state. First, the historical record shows that mature, stable democracies rarely become autocracies.79¶ Second, democracies are able to recognize and respond to states that are making a transition from democracy to authoritarianism. Democratic states thus can pursue a policy of accommodation toward other democracies, hedge their bets with more cautious policies toward unstable or uncertain democracies, and abandon accommodation when democracies turn into nondemocracies. There is no reason to assume that democracies will become autocracies overnight and then immediately launch attacks on democracies.¶ Third, like some other realist arguments, the claim that states must give priority to preparing for an unlikely dangerous future development rests on flawed logic. It assumes that states must base their foreign policies almost entirely on worst-case scenarios. Similar logic would imply that, for example, citizens in any country should act on the basis of the assumption that domestic law and order might collapse into anarchy and violence.¶ Fourth, the claim that democracies must worry about the relative power of other democracies (which may become autocracies) relies on the same shaky logic that predicts that states cannot cooperate because they need to worry about the relative gains achieved by other states.
|
No backslide – democracies don’t revert back to autocracies and can be stopped even if they start to
| 2,749 | 100 | 1,490 | 405 | 18 | 219 | 0.044444 | 0.540741 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,628 |
The Argument: Critics of the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace make the following arguments. First, the structural-institutional model fails to explain why democracies go to war with nondemocracies, even though they do not fight other democracies. If leaders of democracies are constrained from going to war by the public, this constraint would also prevent democracies from fighting nondemocracies.82 Many studies report, however, that democracies have the same rate of war involvement as nondemocracies.¶ Second, critics argue that the public is often just as warlike as the leaders that they are supposed to constrain. Public jingoism and enthusiasm for war accompanied the outbreak of World War One and helped cause the Spanish-American War. The structural-institutional model thus erroneously assumes that the people are usually more pacific than their leaders.83 A related argument suggests that recent extended intervals of peace may have led publics to forget the horrors of war. The end of conscription in many countries and the tendency for wars to be fought by volunteer professional armies may further erode public opposition to the use of force.84¶ Response: The criticisms of the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace are not persuasive, for four reasons. First, this explanation can account for why democracies only avoid wars with other democracies, because democracies may behave differently toward states (i.e., democracies) with domestic institutions that constrain their ability to go to war quickly. Democracies may distinguish between states on the basis of their political institutions, and pursue different policies toward those that are constrained by democratic institutions. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman argue that "some political institutions help foster beliefs ... about the dovish inclinations of certain states. Democratic institutions are visible signs that the state in question is likely to face high political costs for using force in its diplomacy."85 A slightly different form of the argument suggests that the constraints of democratic decision-making become much more severe when the government of a democracy attempts to mobilize the country for war against a fellow democracy. Thus the institutional argument does not actually predict that democracies will pursue peaceful policies toward all types of states.¶ Second, the institutional-structural explanation, properly formulated, need not rest on the assumption that the public is peace-loving while leaders are eager to go to war. Some proponents of the democratic peace proposition, including Immanuel Kant, have assumed that the people are less eager to favor war, because they will ultimately be forced to pay its costs.86 The logic of the theory, however, can be recast in terms of checks and balances. In a democracy, the executive branch, legislative branch, and the public all constrain each other''s ability to make rash and hasty decisions for war.¶ Third, the critics overlook how the existence of domestic constraints in a pair of democratic states can enable a democratic dyad to spend more time seeking a peaceful settlement of a conflict than a dyad with one or no democracies. If both states in a crisis are unable to mobilize quickly, they will have more time to resolve the crisis without war. Bruce Russett argues: "If another nation''s leaders regard a state as democratic, they will anticipate a difficult and lengthy process before the democracy is likely to use significant military force against them. They will expect an opportunity to reach a negotiated settlement."87¶ Finally, critics of the institutional-structural explanation have not addressed the claim that democratic institutions endow democracies with better information-processing capabilities that enable democracies to limit the myths that cause war and to avoid wars when international circumstances render war unwise.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
The criticisms of the structural-institutional explanation of the democratic peace are not persuasive, for four reasons. First, this explanation can account for why democracies only avoid wars with other democracies, because democracies may behave differently toward states (i.e., democracies) with domestic institutions that constrain their ability to go to war quickly. Democracies may distinguish between states on the basis of their political institutions, and pursue different policies toward those that are constrained by democratic institutions. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman argue that "some political institutions help foster beliefs ... about the dovish inclinations of certain states. Democratic institutions are visible signs that the state in question is likely to face high political costs for using force in its diplomacy."85 A slightly different form of the argument suggests that the constraints of democratic decision-making become much more severe when the government of a democracy attempts to mobilize the country for war against a fellow democracy. Thus the institutional argument does not actually predict that democracies will pursue peaceful policies toward all types of states.¶ Second, the institutional-structural explanation, properly formulated, need not rest on the assumption that the public is peace-loving while leaders are eager to go to war. Some proponents of the democratic peace proposition, including Immanuel Kant, have assumed that the people are less eager to favor war, because they will ultimately be forced to pay its costs In a democracy, the executive branch, legislative branch, and the public all constrain each other''s ability to make rash and hasty decisions for war.¶ Third, the critics overlook how the existence of domestic constraints in a pair of democratic states can enable a democratic dyad to spend more time seeking a peaceful settlement of a conflict than a dyad with one or no democracies. If both states in a crisis are unable to mobilize quickly, they will have more time to resolve the crisis without war. Bruce Russett argues: "If another nation''s leaders regard a state as democratic, they will anticipate a difficult and lengthy process before the democracy is likely to use significant military force against them. They will expect an opportunity to reach a negotiated settlement."87¶ Finally, critics of the institutional-structural explanation have not addressed the claim that democratic institutions endow democracies with better information-processing capabilities that enable democracies to limit the myths that cause war and to avoid wars when international circumstances render war unwise.
|
Prefer our evidence – criticisms of the structural/institutional theory for democratic peace are flawed
| 3,964 | 103 | 2,681 | 593 | 14 | 399 | 0.023609 | 0.67285 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,629 |
The Argument: Statistical critiques of the evidence for the democratic peace proposition generally argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the absence of wars between democracies is statistically significant. There are two underlying logics behind most of these quantitative arguments. The first suggests that wars between a given pair of states are relatively rare in international politics, so the absence of wars between democracies might be a coincidence.97 The second argument claims that the absence of war between democracies is only statistically significant after World War II, and that the democratic peace since 1945 has been a product of the alignment of most democracies against the Soviet Union.98¶ Responses: Many quantitative analyses conclude that challenges to the statistical significance of the democratic peace do not withstand close scrutiny.99 Zeev Maoz has offered one of the most comprehensive rebuttals of these arguments.100 He argues that Spiro''s own analysis predicts far more wars between liberal dyads that actually occurred. Maoz also argues that it is misleading to count all parties in large, multi-state wars as being at war with one another. (E.g., Japan was not really "at war" with Bulgaria in World War I.) He notes that Spiro changes the counting rule for the Korean War. Maoz and Russett focused on the "politically-relevant" dyads, which account for most wars. Maoz also claims that slicing the data into one-year segments makes finding any war statistically insignificant. Such slicing is like testing whether a bowl of sugar will attract ants by assessing the statistical significance of finding an ant on an individual grain of sugar. The odds that ants will be in the sugar bowl are high; the chances of an ant being on a given grain of sugar, however, are so low that finding one on a grain would not be statistically significant. When Maoz looks at politically-relevant dyads, he finds that one would expect 57.63 liberal dyads at war between 1816 and 1986, but they find only one: the Spanish-American War.101 He offers similar figures for the 20th century and for militarized disputes. And when Maoz adopts Spiro''s suggestion to look at dyads over their entire history, he finds that conflict actually fell when both countries in a dyad became democratic.¶ The second argument also is unpersuasive, because Farber and Gowa make an arbitrary decision to slice up the data into different periods and categories. Moreover, Maoz is unable to replicate their results. Farber and Gowa appear to have miscounted the total number of dyads.102
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
Many quantitative analyses conclude that challenges to the statistical significance of the democratic peace do not withstand close scrutiny.99 Zeev Maoz has offered one of the most comprehensive rebuttals of these arguments.100 He argues that Spiro''s own analysis predicts far more wars between liberal dyads that actually occurred. Maoz also argues that it is misleading to count all parties in large, multi-state wars as being at war with one another. (E.g., Japan was not really "at war" with Bulgaria in World War I.) He notes that Spiro changes the counting rule for the Korean War. Maoz and Russett focused on the "politically-relevant" dyads, which account for most wars. Maoz also claims that slicing the data into one-year segments makes finding any war statistically insignificant. Such slicing is like testing whether a bowl of sugar will attract ants by assessing the statistical significance of finding an ant on an individual grain of sugar. The odds that ants will be in the sugar bowl are high; the chances of an ant being on a given grain of sugar, however, are so low that finding one on a grain would not be statistically significant. When Maoz looks at politically-relevant dyads, he finds that one would expect 57.63 liberal dyads at war between 1816 and 1986, but they find only one: the Spanish-American War.101 He offers similar figures for the 20th century and for militarized disputes. And when Maoz adopts Spiro''s suggestion to look at dyads over their entire history, he finds that conflict actually fell when both countries in a dyad became democratic.¶ The second argument also is unpersuasive, because Farber and Gowa make an arbitrary decision to slice up the data into different periods and categories. Moreover, Maoz is unable to replicate their results. Farber and Gowa appear to have miscounted the total number of dyads
|
No war – critiques of the statistical support for democratic peace are factually inaccurate and/or skewed
| 2,603 | 106 | 1,858 | 416 | 16 | 304 | 0.038462 | 0.730769 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,630 |
The Argument: Critics of the democratic peace point to apparent wars between democracies as evidence that there is no democratic peace. They frequently cite the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, Finland''s decision to align with Germany against the Western powers and the Soviet Union during World War Two, the American Civil War, World War One, and the wars that followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. At least 17 conflicts have been cited as potential wars between democracies.93¶ Responses: There are three reasons to reject the claim that the democratic peace proposition is invalid because democracies may have fought some wars. First, the democratic peace proposition-correctly formulated-holds that democracies rarely fight, not that they never fight. In social science it is probably impossible to generate laws with 100% accuracy. Thus the correct formulation of the democratic peace proposition is the statement that democracies almost never go to war with one another.94¶ Second, many of the cases cited do not qualify as "wars" between "democracies." A closer examination of the conflicts in question reveals that the apparent exceptions do not refute the democratic peace proposition. In some cases, one of the participants was not a democracy. In 1812, Britain was not a democracy. Spain''s democratic credentials in 1898 were dubious. Germany in 1914 was not governed by liberal principles and its foreign policy was directed by the Kaiser, not the elected Reichstag.95 In other cases, no international war took place. The American Civil War was not an international war. Finland engaged in virtually no direct hostilities with the Western allies during World War Two; it fought almost entirely against communist Russia.96¶ Third, the criticism that democracies have fought one another is irrelevant to deciding whether the United States should export democracy. The spread of democracy makes sense as long as democracies are significantly less likely to go to war with one another. A policy of spreading democracy would be justified if democracies have, for example, avoided war 99.9% of the time; we can decide to spread democracy without debating whether the figure is 99.9% or 100%.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
First, the democratic peace proposition-correctly formulated-holds that democracies rarely fight, not that they never fight. In social science it is probably impossible to generate laws with 100% accuracy. Thus the correct formulation of the democratic peace proposition is the statement that democracies almost never go to war with one another.94¶ Second, many of the cases cited do not qualify as "wars" between "democracies." A closer examination of the conflicts in question reveals that the apparent exceptions do not refute the democratic peace proposition. In some cases, one of the participants was not a democracy. In other cases, no international war took place. The American Civil War was not an international war. Finland engaged in virtually no direct hostilities with the Western allies during World War Two; it fought almost entirely against communist Russia.96¶ Third, the criticism that democracies have fought one another is irrelevant to deciding whether the United States should export democracy. The spread of democracy makes sense as long as democracies are significantly less likely to go to war with one another. A policy of spreading democracy would be justified if democracies have, for example, avoided war 99.9% of the time; we can decide to spread democracy without debating whether the figure is 99.9% or 100%.
|
Prefer our evidence – even if democracies fight 0.1% of the time, that’s still a reason to vote aff
| 2,223 | 99 | 1,340 | 347 | 19 | 208 | 0.054755 | 0.599424 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,631 |
The Argument: Several critics of the democratic peace proposition claim that the absence of war among democracies can be explained by the fact that democracies often have allied against common threats. Democracies have avoided wars with one another not because they share democratic forms of government, but because they have had a common interest in defeating a common enemy. Thus the realist logic of balancing against threats explains the democratic peace.103¶ Responses: There are three responses to the claim that allying against common threats is a more important cause of peace among democracies. First, those who make this argument overlook the fact that threat perceptions and alliance choice often reflect shared values and political principles. These critics assume that alliance formation proceeds in strict accordance with realist logic and that regime type plays no role. Democracies, however, may have found themselves allied to one another against nondemocracies because they share a commitment to democratic values and want to defend them against threats from nondemocracies. Indeed, if the democratic peace proposition is only partially valid and if it is at least dimly understood by decisionmakers, democracies will find other democracies less threatening than nondemocracies and therefore will tend to align with them against nondemocracies. This argument is consistent with Stephen Walt''s balance-of-threat theory, which identifies offensive intentions as element of threat.104 If democracies regard one another as having no offensive intentions toward democracies, they are likely to align against nondemocracies.¶ Second, the tendency of democracies to ally with one another is further evidence of the special characteristics of democratic foreign policy.105 The normative explanation for the democratic peace would predict that democracies would be more likely to form alliances. Instead of being a refutation of the democratic peace, the tendency of democracies to ally with one another is actually an additional piece of confirming evidence.¶ Third, Maoz does an interesting test, examining whether states were allied before they became democracies or allied only after they became democracies. He finds that "Non-aligned democracies are considerably less likely to fight each other than aligned non-democracies."106 This finding suggests that shared democracy-not alignment against a common threat-has the most explanatory power in accounting for the absence of wars between democracies.
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
There are three responses to the claim that allying against common threats is a more important cause of peace among democracies. First, those who make this argument overlook the fact that threat perceptions and alliance choice often reflect shared values and political principles. These critics assume that alliance formation proceeds in strict accordance with realist logic and that regime type plays no role. Democracies, however, may have found themselves allied to one another against nondemocracies because they share a commitment to democratic values and want to defend them against threats from nondemocracies. Indeed, if the democratic peace proposition is only partially valid and if it is at least dimly understood by decisionmakers, democracies will find other democracies less threatening than nondemocracies and therefore will tend to align with them against nondemocracies. This argument is consistent with Stephen Walt''s balance-of-threat theory, which identifies offensive intentions as element of threat.104 If democracies regard one another as having no offensive intentions toward democracies, they are likely to align against nondemocracies.¶ Second, the tendency of democracies to ally with one another is further evidence of the special characteristics of democratic foreign policy.105 The normative explanation for the democratic peace would predict that democracies would be more likely to form alliances. Instead of being a refutation of the democratic peace, the tendency of democracies to ally with one another is actually an additional piece of confirming evidenc Third, Maoz does an interesting test, examining whether states were allied before they became democracies or allied only after they became democracies. He finds that "Non-aligned democracies are considerably less likely to fight each other than aligned non-democracies."106 This finding suggests that shared democracy-not alignment against a common threat-has the most explanatory power in accounting for the absence of wars between democracies.
|
No alt causes – empirics support that there’s no alt causes to the democratic peace
| 2,516 | 83 | 2,038 | 366 | 15 | 294 | 0.040984 | 0.803279 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,632 |
The Argument: Some critics of the democratic peace proposition claim that democracies have not fought one another because they have not had the opportunity. Until recently, there were relatively few democracies in the international system. Many were geographically remote from each other.107
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
Some critics of the democratic peace proposition claim that democracies have not fought one another because they have not had the opportunity. Until recently, there were relatively few democracies in the international system. Many were geographically remote from each other.
|
No alt causes – lack of a chance to fight does not explain the democratic peace
| 291 | 79 | 274 | 42 | 16 | 40 | 0.380952 | 0.952381 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,633 |
The Argument: Skeptics suggest that, if the democratic peace proposition is valid, we should find that pairs of democracies behave in crises in way that reveals that shared democracy, not considerations of power and interest, caused them to avoid war. For example, tracing the process of how events unfolded should reveal that the publics in democracies did not want war with other democracies, that leaders did not make military threats against other democracies, and that democracies adopted accommodating behavior toward other democracies.109 Examination of historical crises, however, reveals that democratic decisionmakers avoided war because they feared defeat or that their states would be weakened in a conflict.110¶ Response: Proponents of the democratic-peace proposition do not deny that considerations of power and interest often motivate states.111 In the anarchic and competitive realm of international politics, democracies cannot avoid making such calculations. Thus evidence that democracies are sensitive to power and interest does not refute the democratic-peace proposition.¶ In addition, critics of the democratic-peace proposition have not tested it fairly; they have not deduced the full range of predictions that the normative and institutional model makes about how democracies will avoid war. More comprehensive tests would also deduce and test hypotheses about how many political and diplomatic aspects of crises between democratic states differ from other crises. Such tests would also compare pairs of democratic states to mixed and nondemocratic pairs. John Owen has conducted such tests and finds considerable evidence to support the democratic-peace proposition.112
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
Proponents of the democratic-peace proposition do not deny that considerations of power and interest often motivate states.111 In the anarchic and competitive realm of international politics, democracies cannot avoid making such calculations. Thus evidence that democracies are sensitive to power and interest does not refute the democratic-peace proposition.¶ In addition, critics of the democratic-peace proposition have not tested it fairly; they have not deduced the full range of predictions that the normative and institutional model makes about how democracies will avoid war. More comprehensive tests would also deduce and test hypotheses about how many political and diplomatic aspects of crises between democratic states differ from other crises. Such tests would also compare pairs of democratic states to mixed and nondemocratic pairs. John Owen has conducted such tests and finds considerable evidence to support the democratic-peace proposition.112
|
No alt causes – realism doesn’t explain the democratic peace
| 1,697 | 60 | 962 | 244 | 10 | 136 | 0.040984 | 0.557377 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,634 |
The Argument: One of the most important arguments against U.S. efforts to promote democracy is the claim that countries engaged in transitions to democracy become more likely to be involved in war. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder make this argument and support it with statistical evidence that shows a correlation between democratization and war. They suggest that several causal mechanisms explain why democratization tends to lead to war. First, old elites play the nationalist card in an effort to incite conflict so that they can retain power. Second, in emerging democracies without strong democratic institutions new rulers compete for support by playing the nationalist card and search for foreign scapegoats for failures.113 This type of electoral competition increases the risk of internal and international conflict.¶ The argument that democratization causes war does not directly challenge the usual form of the democratic peace proposition. Mansfield and Snyder recognize that "It is probably true that a world where more countries were mature, stable democracies would be safer and preferable for the United States."114 Instead, the arguments suggests that attempts to spread democracy have significant risks, including the risk of war.¶ Responses: Mansfield and Snyder have advanced an important new argument, but even if partially true, it does not refute the case for spreading democracy internationally. Taken to extremes, the Mansfield/Snyder argument would amount to a case for opposing all political change on the grounds that it might cause instability. Promoting democracy makes more sense than this course, because the risks of democratization are not so high and uncontrollable that we should give up on attempts to spread democracy.¶ First, there are reasons to doubt the strength of the relationship between democratization and war. Other quantitative studies challenge the statistical significance of Mansfield and Snyder''s results, suggest that there is an even stronger connection between movements toward autocracy and the onset of war, find that it is actually unstable transitions and reversals of democratization that increase the probability of war, and argue that democratization diminishes the likelihood of militarized international disputes.115 In particular, autocracies are likely to exploit nationalism and manipulate public opinion to launch diversionary wars-the same causal mechanisms that Mansfield and Snyder claim are at work in democratizing states. Mansfield and Snyder themselves point out that "reversals of democratization are nearly as risky as democratization itself," thereby bolstering the case for assisting the consolidation of new democracies.116 In addition, very few of the most recent additions to the ranks of democracies have engaged in wars. In Central and Eastern Europe, for example, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have avoided major internal and external conflicts. Of these countries, only Slovenia was involved in brief series of military skirmishes with Serbia.117 Russia has been involved in a number of small wars on or near its borders, but so far it has undergone a dramatic transition toward democracy without becoming very warlike.118 There is little evidence of international war in Latin America, which also has witnessed a large-scale transition to democracy in recent years. Countries such as Mongolia and South Africa appear to have made the transition to democracy without going to war. The new democracies plagued by the most violence, including some former Soviet republics and the republics of the former Yugoslavia, are those that are the least democratic and may not qualify as democracies at all.¶ All of this evidence suggests that whatever may have increased the war-proneness of democratizing states in the past may not be present in the contemporary international system. It may be that states making the transition from feudalism to democracy became more war-prone or that the emerging democracies of the 19th century were European great powers that embarked on imperial wars of conquest. These factors will not lead today''s new democracies into war. Finally, if the democratic peace proposition is correct, the higher proportion of democracies in the current international system may further reduce the risk that new democracies will not engage in war, because they will find themselves in a world of many democracies instead of one of many potentially hostile nondemocracies.¶ Second, it is possible to control any risks of war posed by democratization. Mansfield and Snyder identify several useful policies to mitigate any potential risks of democratization. Old elites that are threatened by democratization can be given "golden parachutes" that enable them to at least retain some of their wealth and to stay out of jail.119 New democracies also need external assistance to build up the journalistic infrastructure that will support a "marketplace of ideas" that can prevent manipulation of public opinion and nationalistic mythmaking.120 Finally, an international environment conducive to free trade can help to move new democracies in a benign direction.121
|
Lynn-Jones 98 Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security, member of the Editorial Board of Security Studies, His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, International Security, and Security Studies, as well as in many edited volumes [Sean Lynn-Jones, "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy", Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security, March 1998, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html] SM
|
Taken to extremes, the Mansfield/Snyder argument would amount to a case for opposing all political change on the grounds that it might cause instability. Promoting democracy makes more sense than this course, because the risks of democratization are not so high and uncontrollable that we should give up on attempts to spread democracy.¶ First, there are reasons to doubt the strength of the relationship between democratization and war. Other quantitative studies challenge the statistical significance of Mansfield and Snyder''s results, suggest that there is an even stronger connection between movements toward autocracy and the onset of war, find that it is actually unstable transitions and reversals of democratization that increase the probability of war, and argue that democratization diminishes the likelihood of militarized international disputes.115 In particular, autocracies are likely to exploit nationalism and manipulate public opinion to launch diversionary wars-the same causal mechanisms that Mansfield and Snyder claim are at work in democratizing states. Mansfield and Snyder themselves point out that "reversals of democratization are nearly as risky as democratization itself," thereby bolstering the case for assisting the consolidation of new democracies In addition, very few of the most recent additions to the ranks of democracies have engaged in wars. In Central and Eastern Europe, for example, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have avoided major internal and external conflicts. Of these countries, only Slovenia was involved in brief series of military skirmishes with Serbia. Russia has been involved in a number of small wars on or near its borders, but so far it has undergone a dramatic transition toward democracy without becoming very warlike.118 There is little evidence of international war in Latin America, which also has witnessed a large-scale transition to democracy in recent years. Countries such as Mongolia and South Africa appear to have made the transition to democracy without going to war. The new democracies plagued by the most violence, including some former Soviet republics and the republics of the former Yugoslavia, are those that are the least democratic and may not qualify as democracies at all All of this evidence suggests that whatever may have increased the war-proneness of democratizing states in the past may not be present in the contemporary international system. It may be that states making the transition from feudalism to democracy became more war-prone or that the emerging democracies of the 19th century were European great powers that embarked on imperial wars of conquest These factors will not lead today''s new democracies into war Finally, if the democratic peace proposition is correct, the higher proportion of democracies in the current international system may further reduce the risk that new democracies will not engage in war, because they will find themselves in a world of many democracies instead of one of many potentially hostile nondemocracies.¶ Second, it is possible to control any risks of war posed by democratization. Mansfield and Snyder identify several useful policies to mitigate any potential risks of democratization. Old elites that are threatened by democratization can be given "golden parachutes" that enable them to at least retain some of their wealth and to stay out of jail.119 New democracies also need external assistance to build up the journalistic infrastructure that will support a "marketplace of ideas" that can prevent manipulation of public opinion and nationalistic mythmaking.120 Finally, an international environment conducive to free trade can help to move new democracies in a benign direction
|
No risk of a turn – democratization does not lead to war, and even if it does it’s still net better than not democratizing
| 5,238 | 123 | 3,800 | 787 | 24 | 574 | 0.030496 | 0.729352 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,635 |
MARIETTA - In hopes of raising awareness about the ongoing human rights violations taking place in Cuba, Washington State Community College is hosting a trio of Cuban human rights activists for a series of discussions that start today and lead up to an open forum to be held at the college Saturday.¶ The three-day event is part of the Evergreen Arts and Humanities series.¶ "In America, we don't hear a lot about human rights violations. We may hear something about China, or North Korea or Burma. But rarely is the issue addressed concerning Cuba, which is only 90 miles away from American soil," said Tanya Wilder, chair of the Evergreen Arts and Humanities series.¶ The event will feature John Suarez, the International Secretary for the Cuban Democratic Directorate, Anna Lee, the Christian Solidarity Worldwide Advocacy officer for Latin America and Laido Carro, president of the Coalition of Cuban-American Women and a Cuban exile.¶ Cuba has been under a totalitarian regime for 54 years, the longest running tyranny currently suffered by any country, said Carro, who fled the country at age 12 shortly after the Cuban Revolution began.¶ "The brutality of what is going on over there is not known because of the propaganda, because this is a police state that uses all its resources to make sure the world thinks otherwise," said Carro, who regularly communicates with activists still in Cuba.¶ The recent transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul in 2011 was followed by a loosening of restrictions for Cubans who wanted to travel outside of the country.¶ However, the move was purely tactical, said Carro.¶ The government routinely kills and tortures dissidents who speak out against the Communist regime, she said.¶ "When you talk to people in other counties they don't believe you. It is a priority to make sure everyone understands what is there 90 miles away," said Carro.
|
Rogers 4/18 - Crime and Courts Reporter for the Manrietta Times, expert on sociology and human rights in foreign nations (Jasmine, Manrietta Times, “WSCC highlights human rights violations in Cuba,” 4/18/13, http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/573141/WSCC-highlights-human-rights-violations-in-Cuba.html?nav=5061, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
|
In America, we don't hear a lot about human rights violations. We may hear something about China, or North Korea or Burma. But rarely is the issue addressed concerning Cuba Cuba has been under a totalitarian regime for 54 years, the longest running tyranny currently suffered by any country The brutality of what is going on over there is not known because of the propaganda, because this is a police state that uses all its resources to make sure the world thinks otherwise The government routinely kills and tortures dissidents When you talk to people in other counties they don't believe you
|
Be skeptical of their evidence – human rights abuses are rampant, but are often covered up by the totalitarian Cuban government.
| 1,899 | 129 | 594 | 315 | 21 | 102 | 0.066667 | 0.32381 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,636 |
IN THE current issue of Foreign Policy, former U.S. secretary of labor, Robert Reich, contends that capitalism and democracy are not complements as is often assumed. According to Mr Reich¶ Conventional wisdom holds that where either capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow. Yet today, their fortunes are beginning to diverge. Capitalism, long sold as the yin to democracy’s yang, is thriving, while democracy is struggling to keep up. ¶ The cause of this divergence, Mr Reich contends, is that companies seeking an advantage over global competitors have invested increasing amounts of money in government lobbying, public relations and bribery. This process of corporations' “writing their own rules” has weakened the ability of average citizens to have their voices heard through the democratic process.¶ Mr Reich is correct to emphasize the importance of the rules of the games for economic, political and social outcomes. The rules of the game provide incentives for individuals to pursue certain courses of action. Interactions by the same individuals will have very different outcomes under different institutional arrangements.¶ The key, then, is to change the rules of the game so that the unproductive rent-seeking activities of corporations are minimized. This is easier said than done. Although an increasing number of economists are exploring the process of institutional change, our understanding of the mechanisms that facilitate sustainable change is still rudimentary.¶ While I agree with Mr Reich’s focus on the rules of the game, I am not convinced that capitalism and democracy are at odds. The late Milton Friedman emphasized that economic freedom promotes political freedom and is also necessary for the sustainability of political freedom over time. His underlying logic is that competitive capitalism separates economic power from political power. One could point to Chile, Taiwan and South Korea as examples where Friedman’s logic seems to hold.¶ Tyler Cowen and Eric Jones have highlighted the cultural gains from capitalism. They conclude that trade in cultural products exposes societies to alternative institutions, values and ideals. Based on this same reasoning, I have written on the importance of free trade in goods, services and cultural products as a means of exporting the foundations of liberal economic, political and social institutions.
|
Coyne 07 – Writer for the Economist in New York, analyst of economic development in rising nations. Also Harper Professor of Economics at George Mason University. (Chris, The Economist, “Capitalism and democracy: friends or foes?,” 8/27/07, http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/08/guest_blogger_chris_coyne, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
|
Conventional wisdom holds that where either capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow I am not convinced that capitalism and democracy are at odds. Milton Friedman emphasized that economic freedom promotes political freedom and is also necessary for the sustainability of political freedom over time. competitive capitalism separates economic power from political power point to Chile, Taiwan and South Korea as examples trade in cultural products exposes societies to alternative institutions, values and ideals I have written on the importance of free trade in goods, services and cultural products as a means of exporting the foundations of liberal economic, political and social institutions.
|
And the affirmative’s world of travel is not mutually exclusive from an improvement in human rights. Capitalism and increased wealth are critical to political and social freedoms.
| 2,398 | 179 | 717 | 365 | 27 | 105 | 0.073973 | 0.287671 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,637 |
Some three-quarters of the people of Communist Cuba largely favor switching to democracy and a market economy, results of a poll indicate. El Nuevo Herald in Miami reported Wednesday the poll by the International Republican Institute found three of four Cubans favor multiparty elections, freedom of expression and other aspects of democracy. It also said nearly 90 percent said they want to convert to a market economy, including the right to own property and run their own businesses. The survey also found 70 percent of respondents are skeptical of Cuban President Raul Castro's reforms, with 52 percent saying they don't see any evidence of reform. "There are a lot of headlines here in the U.S. about changes coming to Cuba, but IRI's survey shows that the Cuban people themselves are not necessarily seeing it so far," IRI President Lorne W. Craner said in a statement Monday. The poll was conducted in July and is based on the responses of 572 adult Cubans. The newspaper didn't report a margin of error.
|
UPI, 2011 (“Poll: Cubans want democracy”, 11/23, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/11/23/Poll-Cubans-want-democracy/UPI-67761322080731/)//AB
|
three-quarters of the people of Communist Cuba largely favor switching to democracy and a market economy the poll by the International Republican Institute found three of four Cubans favor multiparty elections, freedom of expression and other aspects of democracy. nearly 90 percent said they want to convert to a market economy, including the right to own property and run their own businesses 70 percent of respondents are skeptical of Cuban President Raul Castro's reforms Cuban people themselves are not necessarily seeing it so far The newspaper didn't report a margin of error.
|
Cuban populous wants democracy
| 1,011 | 30 | 583 | 170 | 4 | 92 | 0.023529 | 0.541176 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,638 |
In Juan of the Dead, an enterprising but admittedly lazy Cuban and his small band of friends face a Havana full of zombies (the regime claims they are dissidents but Juan knows better) by starting a zombie-disposal service. At one point in the comedic, award-winning Spanish film made in Cuba, Juan answers the phone and a plea to get rid of “the old man” with a subtle line: “ Compañero, you’ll have to handle that family matter yourself.”¶ After 54 years of the Castro brothers’ communist dictatorship, a new generation of Cubans want to take charge of their destiny, to rid themselves of the zombies who blindly follow the Castros.¶ On Sunday, Raúl Castro seemed to toss them a lifeline — the 81-year-old successor to his ailing brother Fidel says he’s leaving Cuba’s presidency in five years and that the communist island’s constitution will soon include term limits for future leaders.¶ Castro tapped Miguel Diaz-Canel, a 52-year-old engineer, now seen as his potential successor, for first vice president. He also shook up the rubber-stamp National Assembly by promoting 69-year-old Esteban Lazo Hernandez, Cuba’s highest ranking black official, to replace Ricardo Alarcon, 75, who served for two decades as assembly president.¶ No doubt, Raúl Castro expects the international community to see these changes as the Great Awakening for Cuba’s leadership gerontocracy, a “historic transcendence” for a new generation to take the mantle and for Afro Cubans to finally bust the iron ceiling that has kept black Cubans from key positions.¶ If only that were so. This is nothing more than lipstick on a zombie.¶ The dictatorship may get a new face but no one elevated by Fidel or Raúl Castro can be considered a Cuban leader in the image of, say, the former Soviet Union’s reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev.¶ Indeed, Diaz-Canel is not the first “young” leader to be seen as a potential heir to lead the one-party state. Remember former Foreign Ministers Roberto Robaina and Felipe Perez Roque? Or former Vice President Carlos Lage? All have disappeared from public view, ousted by the Castro brothers when they became too big for their political britches.¶ As for U.S. policy toward Cuba, there’s nothing in Sunday’s proclamations from Havana that would warrant a thawing of relations. The Obama administration already has made it easier for Cuban Americans to visit their loved ones in Cuba and send remittances. As the State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell noted on Monday, the United States remains “hopeful for the day that the Cuban people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick their own leaders. We’re clearly not there yet.”¶ Certainly the Helms-Burton law that maintains the U.S. embargo requires more than a promise of some elusive change five years from now when the dictatorship will be 59 years old.¶ Diaz-Canel, a former higher education minister and ex-head of the Communist Party in Villa Clara and Holguin provinces, has been traveling with Raúl Castro on key missions abroad and leading delegations on other trips. He is reported to have been in charge of many of Raúl Castro’s economic changes, such as allowing the sale of homes and lifting travel restrictions for some Cubans. All these are seen as efforts to bolster Cuba’s ever-depressed top-down economy, which Raúl Castro maintains are ways to “perfect socialism, not destroy it.”¶ Like we said, lipstick on a zombie.
|
Miami Herald 2/26 (The Miami Herald, “Cuba’s Raúl Castro’s proclaimed changes are no more than lipstick on a zombie,” 2/26/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/26/3255364/cubas-raul-castros-proclaimed.html, accessed 6/28/13, IS)
|
Raúl Castro expects the international community to see these changes as the Great Awakening for Cuba’s leadership gerontocracy If only that were so. This is nothing more than lipstick on a zombie. The dictatorship may get a new face but no one elevated by Fidel or Raúl Castro can be considered a Cuban leader in the image of Gorbachev As for U.S. policy toward Cuba, there’s nothing in Sunday’s proclamations from Havana that would warrant a thawing of relations We’re clearly not there yet All these are seen as efforts to bolster Cuba’s ever-depressed top-down economy, which Raúl Castro maintains are ways to “perfect socialism, not destroy it.”
|
Liberalization is not happening in the SQ. Castro hasn’t and won’t do anything to liberalize his people.
| 3,421 | 105 | 652 | 559 | 17 | 108 | 0.030411 | 0.193202 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,639 |
Cuba’s tourism arrivals shrank by nearly 5 percent in April compared to the same month last year, largely because of significant drops in visitors from the United States and southern Europe, according to official reports. But its income from tourism held steady, apparently as Cuba raised its prices and reached out to more big-spending tourists, moving away from its traditional attractions of low-cost, all-inclusive beach resorts. Cuba’s National Statistic Office (ONE) reported that tourist arrivals fell from 288,000 in April of last year to 274,000 in the same month this year — a 4.9 percent drop. The 1.2 million visitors for the first four months of this year was 1.4 percent down from the same period in 2012. Of the 18 source countries listed separately by ONE, the three at the top — Canada, United Kingdom and Germany — saw increases of 1.3 percent, 8.1 percent and 11.8 percent, respectively. Visitors from Spain plunged by 29.5 percent from April to April — from 6,359 to 3,834 — from Italy by 7.2 percent and from France by 6.8 percent, according to the ONE report. But the most significant drop was in the “other” category, which ONE uses to lump together arrivals from the United States and all other countries with less than 2,000 or so tourists. That fell from 63,248 in April of last year to 54,771 this April — 13.4 percent. Arrivals from “other” countries also fell from 258,378 in the first quarter of 2012 to 243,782 in the same period this year, according to ONE. Johannes Werner, editor of the Tampa-based Cuba Standard, a publication that tracks the island’s economy, said the drop in Spanish and Italian arrivals reflected the financial crisis lashing those countries. Spain, for instance, has 20 percent unemployment. “This shows the continued weakness of the southern European markets, which have been historically strong sources of tourists for Cuba,” Werner said. As for the drop in U.S. arrivals, Werner said he could only speculate that the initial wave of interest in travel to Cuba after the Obama administration began easing restrictions on such travel in 2008 “has flattened out a bit.” Cuba travel industry officials in Miami told El Nuevo Herald in February that only 45 charter flights to the island were scheduled for March, compared to 60 in September.
|
Tamayo, 6/18 – (Juan, “Cuba cites drop in U.S., European arrivals as tourism sags”, Miami Herald, 6/18, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456404/tourism-to-cuba-sags-mostly-because.html)//AB
|
Cuba’s tourism arrivals shrank by nearly 5 percent in April tourist arrivals fell Visitors from Spain plunged by 29.5 percent from Italy by 7.2 percent and from France by 6.8 percent, arrivals from the United States and all other countries with less than 2,000 or so tourists That fell 13.4 percent the initial wave of interest in travel to Cuba after the Obama administration began easing restrictions on such travel in 2008 only 45 charter flights to the island were scheduled for March
|
Cuba’s tourism industry is running low
| 2,296 | 38 | 488 | 384 | 6 | 83 | 0.015625 | 0.216146 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,640 |
Background Information Main Players Reasons to keep the embargo Reasons to get rid of the embargo My opinion is that we should slowly lift the embargo. How we should start is we should send only food aid to help the citizens of Cuba then we should let two way travel between US and Cuba. Then we should open up trade to benefit both countries. Cuba and the US only started to be at odds Jan. 1, 1959, when revolutionary Fidel Castro had overthrown the US-backed President Batista and established Cuba as the first Communist state in the Western Hemisphere.From 1959 to 1960, Castro seized $1.8 billion of US assets in Cuba, making it the largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign government in US history.¶ On Oct. 19, 1960, President Eisenhower signed a partial embargo on exports to Cuba, the first step towards the US policy that exists today. One reason for Eisenhower signing for the partial embargo was that he felt that there was a threat being posed by having a Soviet ally so close to America’s shores.¶ Later when Kennedy was President He approved a 1961 plan to train and arm Cuban exiles trying to overthrow Castro's communist regime, but the Apr. 17, 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion failed when the Cuban military defeated the outnumbered US-backed forces. Then the situation got worse when a spy plane came back with evidence of there being nuclear missiles in Cuba. On February 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447 (effective date February 7, 1962) to declare "an embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba." One year later, on February 8, 1963, the United States prohibited travel to Cuba [37] and in July of that year the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) [36] were issued as a comprehensive economic sanction outlawing financial transactions with Cuba. President Eisenhower: Approved the beginning of the embargo, President Kennedy: Started the ban on travel and trade with Cuba, Fidel Castro: The power hungry dictator that was the leader of Cuba when the embargo started. The embargo may finally be working, Castro remains defiant. He refuses to allow true free-market reforms and rejects democratic political reforms. Instead, he is conducting an aggressive international campaign to get the embargo lifted without making any economic or political concessions in return. The policy has been useless as a tool for cudgeling Castro, and it is hindering opportunities for American industries from travel to banking to agriculture, which is why there's no shortage of U.S. business groups lobbying to ease it. Far from hurting the deplorable Communist regime, the embargo has only given Castro an excuse to rail against Uncle Sam, both to his own people and to the world. Every year, Cuba asks the United Nations for a vote lifting the embargo. What happens? We usually end up with a couple of superpowers like Palau and the Marshall Islands standing with us. Last year, the vote was 183 to 4. The embargo makes us look like an arrogant bully. My Opinion US Cuba Embargo Castro is trying to force the United States to lift the embargo in order to resuscitate his dying communist regime with billions of dollars in trade, investment, and international aid. ,//;. Citations 1."Economic Embargo Timeline." Economic Embargo against Cuba. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. 2."Keep The Embargo On Cuba -- Heritage." Keep The Embargo On Cuba -- Heritage. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. 3."Letters to the Editor." The Miami Herald. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.
|
McNea 4/29 – (Megan McNea, “US Cuba Embargo,” 4/29/13, http://prezi.com/svleohtxhrkz/us-cuba-embargo/, accessed 6/29/13, IS)
|
we should slowly lift the embargo. we should let two way travel between US and Cuba. Then we should open up trade to benefit both countries. The embargo may finally be working, Castro is conducting an aggressive international campaign to get the embargo lifted without making any economic or political concessions in return
|
Gradual change away from the status quo is key – lifting the travel ban paves the way for the lifting of the embargo. Lifting the embargo now bad.
| 3,516 | 147 | 323 | 588 | 28 | 53 | 0.047619 | 0.090136 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,641 |
¶ RELATIONS BETWEEN the United States and Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full economic embargo in 1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change the status quo. Yet while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The communist government of the ruling Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled to return home.¶ These changes, and the beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunity to acknowledge Cuba’s gestures and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the Castros, the Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ The Cuban-American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting greater contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of Florida voters. Because of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as Romney — has more maneuvering room politically.¶ The first step would be to end the silly claim, reinstated by the Obama administration last summer, that Cuba remains a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The administration argued that Cuba harbored members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. It has, but the FARC and Colombia are now in negotiations; those peace talks are supported by the Obama White House in order to end a bloody civil war.¶ By depoliticizing the Cuba portfolio, the United States could then begin to lessen trade restrictions, starting with promoting cultural exchanges; ending the travel ban; and eventually allowing for trade in oil, gas, and other commodities. Over time, billions of dollars in new trade between the two nations will benefit both. This would include boosts to US farm companies while helping Cubans.¶ Direct relations would also further US national security and environmental interests; as Cuba opens up, other countries will sweep in to seek influence, as China has already done. Especially as Cuba increasingly promotes offshore drilling and other maritime exploration, the United States must improve communication with Havana. Currently, even though the United States and Cuba are separated by a narrow channel, the two countries have no bilateral communications to ensure safety standards for their mutual protection from oil spills.¶ Secretary of State John Kerry should make Cuba a focus of his first months in office. Unfortunately, his successor as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a son of Cuban immigrants who has opposed the administration’s efforts to ease relations. Menendez will need to be convinced that he can help Cubans more by resetting American policy.¶ Absent military intervention, there are very few opportunities for a president to dramatically alter relations with a historic foe; Obama has taken such advantage of a disorientingly rapid liberalization by Burma’s military rulers. Raul Castro’s recent decision to lift travel restrictions on Cuban citizens is similarly momentous — and signals that the timing is ripe for a new diplomatic agenda with Cuba.
|
Boston Globe 2/09 (Boston Globe Editorial, “Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too” 2/09/13, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html, 7/1/13,)
|
, the Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ . Supporting greater contact animates a younger generation Because of this trend, Obama has more maneuvering room politically By depoliticizing the Cuba portfolio, the United States could then begin to lessen trade restrictions, ending the travel ban; and eventually allowing for trade Over time billions of dollars in new trade between the two nations will benefit both. This would include boosts to US farm companies while helping Cubans.¶ Direct relations would also further US national security and environmental interests Raul Castro’s recent decision to lift travel restrictions on Cuban citizens signals that the timing is ripe for a new diplomatic agenda with Cuba.
|
Incremental change in policy increases trade, US national security and environmental protections
| 3,496 | 96 | 756 | 548 | 12 | 118 | 0.021898 | 0.215328 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,642 |
As an American, I enjoy the right to travel virtually anywhere without interference from my government. It's one of the things that set us apart from the authoritarian regimes to which we hold ourselves up as a beacon and an example. But there's one exception, one country over which the U.S. government abrogates its citizens' freedom of travel. Is it North Korea, the outlaw, nuclear-saber-rattling regime that starves its citizens? No, any of us can legally head west for a demilitarized zone vacation. Perhaps it's Iran, America's biggest Middle Eastern adversary and another possible nuclear threat? Nope.¶ The only country to which Americans are barred from traveling is neither a rival nor a threat. It is Cuba, the last bastion of domestic Cold War politics.¶ That may soon change. In anticipation of this week's summit with Latin American and Caribbean leaders, President Obama rolled back restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the island or sending money to their families there. Last week, members of a congressional delegation had constructive meetings with former Cuban President Fidel Castro and his brother Raúl, the current president. And a bipartisan group of members of Congress, backed by a formidable coalition of U.S. business interests, is pushing legislation that would lift the travel ban for all U.S. citizens. They are optimistic of passing it this year.¶ Easing travel restrictions would be a good first step, but only as prologue to the main event: lifting the U.S. embargo against Cuba. There are several good reasons, substantive and political, to modernize our Cuba policy (and not simply my own desire to enjoy a Cuba libre and a Cohiba cigar while strolling the beaches of Varadero).
|
Schlesinger 9 [ROBERT SCHLESINGER, Obama's Revamp of Cuba Travel Policy Is Overdue, But the Embargo Should Come Next, US News and World, 4/14/09, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/14/obamas-revamp-of-cuba-travel-policy-is-overdue-but-the-embargo-should-come-next]
|
The only country to which Americans are barred from traveling is neither a rival nor a threat. It is Cuba Easing travel restrictions would be a good first step, as prologue to lifting the U.S. embargo against Cuba
|
Easing restrictions leads to the end of the embargo
| 1,723 | 51 | 213 | 277 | 9 | 38 | 0.032491 | 0.137184 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,643 |
It is far past time that we end the counterproductive and unnecessary travel ban.¶ If one examines the history of American foreign affairs, it is hard to find a policy that has lasted for as long, yet so obviously failed, as our trade embargo of Cuba. If someone had told President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 that the Cuban embargo would last 50 years, would Eisenhower have considered a different approach?¶ We'll never know, but what we do know is that a half-century of the embargo hasn't brought down Castro's government. And it certainly hasn't helped Americans in any way. At long last, the time has come for the embargo to end.¶ The old cliché says that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result." Yet whenever the question of the embargo is raised, its defenders say we need to keep it in place so we can keep pressure to promote democratic reforms, including greater freedom of speech, religion, and association. This is the same argument that has been made for 50 years. The embargo didn't bring about democratic reform in 1960, or 1970, or 1980, and it won't do so in 2010. We need to try a new approach.¶ That approach is engagement - individual, cultural, and economic. It won't be only Cubans who will reap the benefits. The House Agriculture Committee recently passed the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. It lifts all restrictions on travel to Cuba, and allows American farmers to sell their crops to this waiting market just a few miles off our shores. It will be an important first step, but we need to go even farther, to eliminate the trade embargo that has failed for so long.¶ The result will be hundreds of millions of dollars coming into the American economy, and the creation of thousands of American jobs. And when Cubans start buying our goods and forming relationships with Americans, the path to their future - a democratic and prosperous one - will become clearer than ever.¶ If we can allow travel and trade with nations such as China and Vietnam, then surely we can move forward with lifting the travel ban and ending the embargo with Cuba.
|
Rep. Lee 10 [Rep. Barbara Lee, California’s 9th District, Huffington Post, 8/19/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barbara-lee/mr-president-lift-the-tra_b_687580.html]
|
It is far past time that we end the unnecessary travel ban it is hard to find a policy that has lasted for as long, yet so obviously failed, as our trade embargo of Cub we do know is that a half-century of the embargo hasn't brought down Castro's government. And it certainly hasn't helped Americans in any way. At long last, the time has come for the embargo to end The embargo didn't bring about democratic reform in 1960, or 1970, or 1980, and it won't do so in 2010. We need to try a new approach That approach is engagement - individual, cultural, and economic. It won't be only Cubans who will reap the benefits. If we can allow travel then we can move forward with ending the embargo with Cuba.
|
The Cuban Embargo and Travel Barrier are counterproductive, and hurting squo US/Cuba relations
| 2,189 | 94 | 701 | 384 | 13 | 133 | 0.033854 | 0.346354 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,644 |
The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition: Diplomatic. Open dialogue with the government of Cuba. Fidel Castro says he wants to open negotiations with the U.S. The U.S. should capitalize on this new stance of openness and use it to its advantage. The U.S. has open dialogue with China; Cuba should be no different. This idea will also open doors to establish relationships with the progressive Cuban leadership willing to consider change. The Bush Administration should also consider supporting the Cuba Working Group’s 9-Point Plan as a tool to initiate reform.
|
Arzeno 03 – Master of Business Administration, University of Miami (Mario A., “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change?” Master of Military Art and Science Strategy, page 49, 2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, Accessed 30 June 2013
|
U.S. goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power
|
Lifting the travel ban key to successful transition – only slow transition leads to peace
| 808 | 89 | 197 | 128 | 15 | 32 | 0.117188 | 0.25 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,645 |
A better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic embargo and measured moves toward the establishment of normal diplomatic relationships. If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws moves forward, that development could be — and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and establishing political ties. Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in order to promote additional progress.
|
Ledger 11 – Lakeland newspaper (“Tourism vs. Embargo: Time to Engage Cuba,” 24 August 2011, http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730
|
better approach toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of embargo If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws moves forward, that development should be trigger for easing the embargo and establishing political ties Benchmarks could be created in order to promote additional progress
|
Gradual lifting best – provides incentives for additional Cuban progress
| 457 | 72 | 296 | 68 | 10 | 43 | 0.147059 | 0.632353 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,646 |
The lifting of the embargo could be undertaken in stages linked to the fulfillment by the Cuban government of key conditions necessary for holding elections. These would include allowing genuine independent opposition parties to function, freeing the press and other media and opening them up to the opposition, allowing international nongovernmental organizations to provide elections training and technical assistance to the Cuban people -- in short, taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election campaign in which opposition parties have an equal chance to participate and compete.¶ With international monitors in place months in advance of any vote, the actions of the Cuban government could be watched and evaluated for compliance by members of the U.S. Congress and respected international figures. The Bush administration could determine at each stage whether conditions had been met that would allow the gradual lifting of specific aspects of the embargo.
|
Kagan 08 – American historian, author and foreign policy commentator at the Brookings Institution (Robert, “A Card to Play for Cuba's Freedom,” The Washington Post, 20 February 2008, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-20/opinions/36789855_1_opposition-parties-international-election-monitors-cuban-government, Accessed 29 June 2013
|
lifting of the embargo undertaken in stages key conditions necessary for holding elections taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election campaign in which opposition parties have an equal chance to participate and compete actions of the Cuban government could be watched and evaluated for compliance by members of U.S. determine at each stage that would allow the gradual lifting of embargo
|
Gradual key to ensuring US maintains influence in Cuba
| 972 | 54 | 399 | 148 | 9 | 64 | 0.060811 | 0.432432 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,647 |
The Supreme Court has recognized that the United States Constitution's substantive due process guarantees include a limitation on the government's ability to restrict travel. Among other things, the Fifth Amendment requires that any restriction on a citizen's right to travel must be justified by a government interest important enough to outweigh that right. In the past, the Court has sided with the U.S. government and upheld Cuba travel restrictions based on the government's argument that "interests of national security" outweighed any right to travel to the island. However, since reimposing the travel restrictions in 1982, the U.S. government has consistently claimed that the restrictions on travel-related transactions are intended to cut off the flow of hard currency to Cuba. 1 Whether such a governmental interest could withstand constitutional challenge under even rational review, given the clear infringement of U.S. citizens' right to international travel, is highly dubious- particularly when considered against the $600 million to $1 billion sent to Cuba in recent years in the form of permissible remittances.2 While we support the Administration's changes concerning remittances last year as a matter of principle and policy, the reality remains that a portion of that multi-million dollar export to the island nation inevitably returns to the Cuban state. Thus, to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions remains irrational and unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within the country.
|
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
|
the Fifth Amendment requires that any restriction on a citizen's right to travel must be justified by a government interest important enough to outweigh that right since reimposing the travel restrictions the U.S. government has consistently claimed that the restrictions on travel- are intended to cut off the flow of hard currency Whether such a interest could withstand constitutional challenge given the clear infringement of U.S. citizens' right is highly dubious to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions remains unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within the country
|
Squo policy violates the 5th Amendment
| 1,575 | 38 | 643 | 236 | 6 | 97 | 0.025424 | 0.411017 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,648 |
The Judge also sent a strong message as to the hurdle the DOJ would have to overcome regarding air travel: “The right to travel here and abroad is an important constitutional right. To deny this right to a citizen . . . based on inaccurate information without an effective means of redress would unconstitutionally burden the right to travel. While the Constitution does not ordinarily agree the right to travel by any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.” This isn’t exactly new, as so eloquently stated in Kent v. Dulles (1958): “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”
|
Thomson, 1/3 – (Wendy, “Air travel is a right”, TSA News, 1/3/13, http://tsanewsblog.com/8414/news/air-travel-is-a-right/)//AB
|
The right to travel here and abroad is an important constitutional right To deny this right to a citizen . . . based on inaccurate information without an effective means of redress would unconstitutionally burden the right to travel. The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”
|
Our freedom of movement is being unjustly broken by the travel embargo on Cuba, causing a loss of liberty
| 1,584 | 105 | 663 | 272 | 19 | 114 | 0.069853 | 0.419118 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,649 |
The arguments for rights of Americans to travel to Cuba are primarily grounded in amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These expand out to include the rights of to travel abroad, to seek information relevant to public issues through foreign travel, and to exchange information and views with people in other countries; rights derived from the First and Fifth Amendments of the "Bill of Rights."¶ Before the "Bill of Rights," in Anglo-Saxon law, the of the right to travel emerges at least as earl as the Magna Carta. Article 42 reads:¶ It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.¶ In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499 -500, the United States Surpeme Court stated that: "Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."¶ In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.¶ "The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."¶ The case involved the Secretary of States refusal to issue a passport because the plaintiff wouldn't file an affidavit regarding his political beliefs. In the majority (5-4) opinion Justice William Douglas wrote"¶ The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id. at 197.
|
Mozer 11 (David Mozer, IBF, “Cuba Right to Travel: The Constitutional Case,’ 2011, http://www.ibike.org/cuba/ofac/law.htm, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
|
The arguments for rights of Americans to travel to Cuba are in amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These expand out to include the rights of to travel abroad and to exchange information and views with people in other countries; rights derived from the First and Fifth Amendments of the "Bill of Rights." The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
|
Cuba travel is a Constitutional right, so voting negative is a violation of the Constitution
| 3,340 | 92 | 445 | 595 | 15 | 78 | 0.02521 | 0.131092 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,650 |
There is one final question to be answered: Even if Madison believed that a bill of rights could be framed--as ours surely was--with the intent of preventing the implication of powers not granted to the government by the Constitution, what benefit could be gained by it? Was it not Madison who argued most forcefully that we cannot trust in parchment barriers? The answer is that Madison indeed thought ambition would counteract ambition, to "oblige the government to control itself" This was the idea of checks and balances. But it does not explain how the Founders proposed to safeguard individual liberty from tyranny of the majority, rather than tyranny of the rulers over the ruled. The safeguard of individual liberty, Madison reasoned, must lie with the people themselves. It is the people who must be responsible for defending their liberties. And a bill of rights, Madison and his colleagues finally concluded, might support public understanding and knowledge of individual liberty that would assist citizens in the task of defending their liberties. A bill of rights, they saw, could serve the noble purpose of public education and edification. As Madison confided to Jefferson, "The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion." From this view, our first 10 amendments are still important today, in their text and substance, beyond their legal effect. They still call upon us to study them for the sake of knowing our liberties and defending them from all encroachments. Although these amendments may be nothing more than "parchment barriers," they can still provide a bulwark against encroachments on our rights. For as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84, the security of liberty, "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all...must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights."
|
Postell, 07 – (“Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights”, 12/14/07, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-and-importance-of-the-bill-of-rights)//AB
|
a bill of rights could be framed with the intent of preventing the implication of powers not granted to the government by the Constitution, what benefit could be gained by it ambition would counteract ambition oblige , The safeguard of individual liberty must lie with the people themselves people must be responsible for defending their liberties a bill of rights, support public understanding and knowledge of individual liberty that would assist citizens in the task of defending their liberties A bill of rights could serve public education our first 10 amendments are still important today beyond their legal effect. the security of liberty, we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights."
|
The Fifth Amendment is largely important for our freedom
| 2,141 | 56 | 699 | 343 | 9 | 114 | 0.026239 | 0.332362 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,651 |
What is liberty, and why is it important? Why do we care about it? The first premise that I offer here is that liberty is an expression of what is valuable about us as human beings. It is a natural law idea; that is to say, it is a moral imperative based on what is fundamental (another moral idea) about our human nature. I would say that what is important about us, what makes us moral human beings, is our individual capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality. Individuals, therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual responsibility for our lives, and our choices. And if a person is to count as a person—and here we have the difficult questions about the beginning and the end of life—then we are all equally valuable in this same way. It is from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our goods: that we choose what to make of the only life we will ever have. My liberty, then, is my ability to choose that life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that good of the other is worth no more than mine because he is not worth any more than I am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual noninterference: an equal right. By the same token, nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help him achieve his own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign.
|
Fried, 05 – (Charles, “The Nature and Importance of Liberty”, 9/22/05, pg. 1)
|
liberty is an expression of what is valuable about us as human beings. It is a natural law idea; a moral imperative based on what is fundamental about our human nature. that what is important about us, what makes us human our individual capacities is what Kant called our freedom . My liberty , is my ability to choose that life No one has the right to interfere with that choice nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help him achieve his own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign.
|
Upholding liberty is a key importance for all humans to live and a reason to vote aff
| 1,492 | 85 | 537 | 276 | 17 | 99 | 0.061594 | 0.358696 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,652 |
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the Proper ordering; principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
|
Petro, 1974 – (Sylvester, 1974, University of Toledo Law Review, pg 4801 FG)
|
I believe in only one thing: liberty. It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the Proper ordering; principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
|
Liberty and freedom are the most important impacts – undermining them leads to chaos and tyranny
| 747 | 97 | 576 | 128 | 16 | 100 | 0.125 | 0.78125 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,653 |
The American people are ready to hear the truth. They know our government is out of control. And the only thing they care more about than today is tomorrow — because tomorrow is about our children and grandchildren, and today is just about us. The bottom line is we took action — we did it with solid principles and strong leadership — putting our state's interests ahead of partisan ones. We turned Trenton upside down. And in the difficult times that America is in now, the only way to govern is by treating our citizens as adults — by telling them the truth about the depth of our challenges and the difficulty of the solutions. When we fail to do this, we pay the price as a country many times over. The domestic price is obvious: growth slows, unemployment persists, and we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of rightfully skittish markets. But there's also a foreign policy price to pay. To begin with, we diminish our ability to influence the thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. Democracy is the best protector of human dignity, liberty, and freedom — and history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against both their citizens and their neighbors. Yet, all across the world — in the Middle East and Asia and Africa and Latin America — people are debating their own political and economic futures. They're looking for inspiration, and we have a stake in the outcome of those debates. There's no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and marketbased economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working well. At one time in our history, our greatness was a reflection of our country's innovation, determination, ingenuity, and the strength of our democratic institutions. When there was a crisis in the world, Americans found a way to come together to help our allies and fight our enemies. When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the greater public interest first. Today, our ability to effect change has been diminished because of our own inability and unwillingness to effectively deal with our problems. Now, I understand full well that succeeding at home and setting an example is not enough. But it's a start. And I realize that what I'm calling for requires a lot of our elected officials and our people. I plead guilty to that. But I also plead guilty to being an optimist, because I believe in what this country and its citizens can accomplish if they understand what's being asked of them. We seem to have forgotten that this is a human business. Day after day, I've spent time sitting with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, convincing them of my intentions and letting them know that I don't believe compromise is a dirty word. There's always a boulevard between compromising your principles and getting everything you want. You should never compromise your principles. But you also need to understand that you're not always going to get everything you want. The job of a leader is to find your way onto the boulevard between the two without driving into the ditch of compromising what you believe. And trust me, if you can do this in New Jersey, you can do it anywhere. That's where my optimism comes from. See, I'm not looking to be loved. I get plenty of love at home — and when you're looking for love in this job, that's when deficits get run up. However, if you make people understand that you're willing to say no, but you're also always willing to listen — that you're willing to stand hard on principles, but you're also willing to compromise when those principles won't be violated — then respect will come. It's about being consistent. It's about leading by example. It's about standing up for the things that we believe in, instead of simply trying to figure out which way the wind's blowing. There's no need for varnish anymore. In fact, I don't think we have the luxury to put it on. Liberty and freedom and the human spirit are the most powerful things in the world — and we need to say that directly to the American people. They're ready to hear it.
|
CATO, 2012 – (“Policy Forum: The Importance of Liberty: At Home and Abroad”, 6/7/12, http://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2012/policy-forum-importance-liberty-home-abroad)//AB
|
The American people know our government is out of control. the only way to govern is by telling them the truth about the depth of our challenges and the difficulty of the solutions. growth slows, unemployment persists, and we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of rightfully skittish markets Democracy is the best protector of human dignity, liberty, and freedom our greatness was a reflection of our country's innovation, determination, ingenuity, and the strength of our democratic institutions. Today, our ability to effect change has been diminished It's about being consistent. It's about leading by example. It's about standing up for the things that we believe in, instead of simply trying to figure out which way the wind's blowing. Liberty and freedom and the human spirit are the most powerful things in the world — and we need to say that directly to the American people. They're ready to hear it.
|
Liberty is key to a large amount of human entitlements
| 4,155 | 54 | 941 | 731 | 10 | 154 | 0.01368 | 0.21067 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,654 |
To say the least, I’m not a big Rick Santorum fan. Even so, I am obliged to say I was impressed by his statement earlier this week that “the issue in the presidential race is not the economy, but an oppressive government that’s taking away people’s freedom.” Love him or hate him, Santorum was spot on with that one. The ever-worsening state of the economy (and, yes, it is getting worse) is but a symptom of the ever-worsening state of our freedom (the cause). The government cannot “fix” the economy. Only free people can do that. The government, however, is quite capable of making the economy worse. George W. Bush proved that, and Barack Obama is making him look like a free-market champion by comparison. Kids who can’t open a lemonade stand without fear of being fined are not living in a free country. An Idaho couple that has to take its case all the way to the Supreme Court just to earn the right to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency ruling that their property is a “protected wetland,” and that they are therefore barred from building on it, is not living in a free country. When the government can take your money and redistribute it to others, force you to buy a product you do not want, spy on you without cause, even kill you — you are not living in a free country. Ron Paul has been preaching this message for more than three decades, so, quite naturally, he is reviled by the establishment in both wings of the Demopublican Party. In case you’ve never seen them before, here are Paul’s Six Forgotten Principles of Freedom: Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property was intended to be owned by people, not governments. All voluntary associations should be permissible, both economic and social. The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not to participate in fraud by debauching it. The justification for the existence of government is to protect the liberty of individuals, not to redistribute wealth or pass out special privileges. People’s lives and actions are their own responsibility, not the government’s.
|
Ringer, 12 – (Robert, “America’s Problem is Government Taking Away People’s Freedom: Does Rick Santorum Agree with Ron Paul?”, A Voice of Sanity, 3/22, http://avoiceofsanity.com/roberts-insights/americas-problem-is-government-taking-away-peoples-freedom-does-rick-santorum-agree-with-ron-paul/)//AB
|
Kids who can’t open a lemonade stand without fear of being fined are not living in a free country. An Idaho couple that has to take its case all the way to the Supreme Court just to earn the right to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency ruling that their property is a “protected wetland,” and that they are therefore barred from building on it, is not living in a free country When the government can take your money force you to buy spy on yo even kill you — you are not living in a free country Rights belong to individuals, not groups. People’s lives and actions are their own responsibility, not the government’s.
|
The government breaking the Constitution takes away human freedoms and sinks the economy
| 2,089 | 88 | 626 | 359 | 13 | 114 | 0.036212 | 0.317549 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,655 |
This is a crucial time for our Liberty. We have recently witnessed the biggest economic disruption in the history of the world, and almost instantly seen the United States Constitution eroded in a way that threatens every Liberty we have so long taken for granted. The time for vigilance of our Liberty has become even more important. Liberty is a powerful concept. It affects everything that happens to you and every choice you have the ability to make. It affects the way you raise your children, the place you live, the daily freedoms you do or do not have, and your ability to fulfill your God-given Kingdom purpose. Liberty affects everything and everyone. Every decision you make either leads you toward greater liberty or toward bondage. What is Liberty? “Liberty is the opportunity to make a choice to assume responsibility and accept the consequences.” Liberty is a God-given idea placed within the heart of all peoples. As the people in this Nation have looked to civil government as their source, we have lost many of our essential Liberties. Liberty entails responsibility. You cannot be dependent on someone else and free at the same time. Control follows money. He who pays controls. If you want to pick the restaurant for dinner, just say you are buying and everyone will be happy to eat where you are paying. Some believe that the civil government owes them. They want the handouts without any strings attached, yet all government money comes with strings attached. This entitlement mentality takes away a person’s freedom to determine their own destiny. Whoever controls the money controls everything else. If you want to control your own destiny, then you must control your own money and not be dependent on anyone else. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is considered normal in our society. However, government redistribution of wealth is a fundamental belief of communism. Therefore, it cannot be a principle of Liberty. The instability of recent days is a clarion call for everyone to get informed about Liberty. Most Americans would tell you they are still free. And even though we still have more freedom than most countries of the world, we have exchanged many of our Constitutionally-guaranteed Liberties for the illusion of safety and protection.
|
McMilian, 2011 – (Marlene, “Does Liberty REALLY Matter?”, Why Liberty Matters, 2011, http://www.whylibertymatters.com/)//AB
|
This is a crucial time for our Liberty We have recently seen the United States Constitution eroded in a way that threatens every Liberty we have so long taken for granted Liberty is a powerful concept. It affects everything that happens to you and every choice you have the ability to make. . Liberty affects everything and everyone The instability of recent days is a clarion call for everyone to get informed about Liberty. Most Americans would tell you they are still free. And even though we still have more freedom than most countries of the world, we have exchanged many of our Constitutionally-guaranteed Liberties for the illusion of safety and protection.
|
Liberty is an a-priori concern which much be kept strong
| 2,282 | 56 | 664 | 380 | 10 | 112 | 0.026316 | 0.294737 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,656 |
Throughout history, this climb from freedom into various securities has manifested itself in variable ways, ranging from secular and holy monarchy, to dictatorship and junta, to parliamentary empire, to shades of democracy, to various forms of governmental union, all promising to do for the people after convincing the people that the people, themselves, could not do it. Those attempts at security, though, eventually turn on the people, and they turn begging for freedom, all the while forgetting they ran as surely from freedom as they eventually run from their government. A key difference is that freedom never indoctrinates people to believe they need it. Instead, it is something they realize on their own — after enough people have died — that freedom is the only route to happiness. Those who fight for freedom know best its value, but so often fail to transfer that understanding to their children. Soon those children, or their children, fail to see freedom’s value. After all, freedom doesn’t use scare tactics, or squeeze dissenters, discredit disbelievers or use the media to show them how wrong they are. Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair their freedoms. People will keep you in check when you fringe upon their freedoms, but no one will keep you from giving up your own. Governments, on the other hand, don’t want you to believe that you can do without them. They will do everything in their power to illustrate how dangerous freedom is, how much you need to give up your freedom so they can protect you, provide for you, and keep you from having to take responsibility for your own life, security and fate. “But people might hurt you! Mother nature might take away your possessions and loved ones! Terrorists will hate you for your freedom!” In other words, from the government to your ears: “Without us, you’re nothing but a target for evil.” And they’d be wrong. Freedom, when exercised by people who take responsibility for themselves and voluntarily for their neighbors, breeds the very best in humanity, promoting self-management, self-rule, self-regulation, moderation, growth and mercy. A responsibly free people govern themselves, and that makes all the difference! The nature of government (generic) is all about control. Who should be most in control? The best answer: human beings who govern themselves and leave everyone else to govern their own lives. No human is more capable of running someone else’s life — we’re all equally flawed, just in different ways. But freedom won’t fight for itself. Freedom, by its very nature, doesn’t attempt to take from you, hurt you or control you. Freedom says: You’re a human being with a mind for thinking and a heart for feeling. Learn to control them, and yourself, and live in harmony with those around you. Don’t presume that what works for you will work for anyone else, and if it does, sell people on the merits of it, ultimately letting them choose for themselves over forcing them to do as you think best. By returning to freedom, we loosen people from the debilitating effects Government has on human minds. Like unshackling a slave who has been convinced those shackles can never be released, it will scare people to think that what they were convinced of was wrong. People are frightened of losing those shackles. They’ve been taught those shackles are for their safety, like an abusive husband who has convinced his wife that she cannot survive without him, all the while preying on her hard work and good heart. But the covenant she made was to a healthy relationship and a man he used to be, or portrayed himself to be. It will take her being hit too often, and her own children come under threat, before she realizes that anything is better than the soft-talking government who cannot survive on its own, who needs someone to own and control. Without a willing populace, the government is weak and easily destroyed. In order to return people to freedom will require fighting the people more than fighting the government. And to do so, it can’t be done by forcing them to it, by the very token that freedom forced will taste more bitter than the abuse already suffered at the government. Like all good things in the community of freedom, we must convince people of its merit, of its long-term value to benefit people of all walks and all ages, to illustrate that they will come to a better tomorrow with less control and more contentment. Freedom is vital. All people die, but dying under freedom is better than under government. We must each learn why freedom is important to us and then show it to others, and help them discover their own full potential under freedom. Until then, this fight will go nowhere.
|
Michael, 3/17 – (Christian, “Freedom More Important Than Security, Stability, Life” christianmicheal, 3/17/13, http://christianmichael.org/2013/03/17/freedom-more-important-than-security-stability-life/)//AB
|
Throughout history, this climb from freedom into various securities has manifested itself in variable ways all promising to do for the people after convincing the people that the people, themselves, could not do it the peopl turn begging for freedom freedom never indoctrinates people to believe they need it that freedom is the only route to happiness freedom doesn’t use scare tactics, or squeeze dissenters, discredit disbelievers or use the media to show them how wrong they are Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair their freedoms . Governments will do everything in their power to illustrate how dangerous freedom is from the government to your ears: “Without us, you’re nothing but a target for evil.” And they’d be wrong Freedom, , breeds the very best in humanity A responsibly free people govern themselves, and that makes all the difference! The nature of government (generic) is all about control. Freedom says: You’re a human being with a mind for thinking Freedom is vital. All people die, but dying under freedom is better than under government. We must each learn why freedom is important to us and then show it to others, and help them discover their own full potential under freedom. Until then, this fight will go nowhere.
|
Liberty and freedom are key for our value to life – this outweighs their impacts
| 4,737 | 80 | 1,281 | 810 | 15 | 217 | 0.018519 | 0.267901 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,657 |
Ultimately, the fate of American liberty is in the hands of American voters. Though we are less free with every tick of the clock, most of us still believe that the government is supposed to serve the people—fairly, not selectively. There are some surprisingly direct ways to address the excesses I’ve described. First, Congress and the state legislatures should enact legislation that simply requires the police, all other law enforcement personnel, and everyone who works for or is an agent of the government to be governed by, subject to, and required to comply with all the laws. That would eliminate virtually all entrapment, and it would enhance respect for the law. If the police are required to obey the same laws as the rest of us, our respect for them and for the laws they enforce would dramatically increase, and their jobs would become easier. In short, it would be against the law to break the law. Second, Congress and the state legislatures should make it easier to sue the federal and state governments for monetary damages when they violate our constitutional liberties. The federal government and many states have rendered themselves immune (called “sovereign immunity”) from such lawsuits if the lawsuit attacks the exercise of discretion by government employees. That is nonsense. You can sue your neighbor for negligence if his car runs over your garden or your dog. You can sue your physician if he leaves a scalpel in your belly. You should be able to sue the local police, state police, and the FBI under the same legal theories if they torment you, prevent you from speaking freely, bribe witnesses to testify against you, steal your property, or break the law in order to convict you. If the Constitution is enforced selectively, according to the contemporary wants and needs of the government, we will continue to see public trials in some cities and secret trials in others; free speech suppressed on inexplicable whims; police targeting the weak and killing the innocent; and government lying to its citizens, stealing their property, tricking them into criminal acts, bribing its witnesses against them, making a mockery of legal reasoning, and breaking the laws in order to enforce them. This is not the type of government we, the people, have authorized to exist, and it is not the type of government that we should tolerate. We can do better. If government crimes are not checked, our Constitution will be meaningless, and our attempts to understand it, enforce it, and rely on it will be chaotic.
|
Napolitano, 2004 – (Andrew, “How the Government Breaks the Law”, CATO Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2004/11/cpr-26n6-1.pdf)//AB
|
Though we are less free with every tick of the clock, most of us still believe that the government is supposed to serve the people fairly Congress should enact legislation that requires everyone who works for the government to comply with all the laws it would enhance respect for the law it would be against the law to break the law. The federal government and many states have rendered themselves immune That is nonsense. . If the Constitution is enforced selectively we will continue to see breaking the laws This is not the type of , government that we should tolerate. We can do better. If government crimes are not checked, our Constitution will be meaningless, and our attempts to understand it, enforce it, and rely on it will be chaotic.
|
Allowing the government to break the Constitution leads to a world where the American populous has no value to life.
| 2,531 | 117 | 746 | 424 | 20 | 131 | 0.04717 | 0.308962 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,658 |
We write to you concerning anticipated changes to United States-Cuba policy, and specifically the expansion of travel opportunities from the U.S. to Cuba. While we applaud the Administration's reinstatement of the general license for family travel and remittances last year, the U.S. has yet to eliminate the irrational and unlawful prohibition against travel to Cuba by non-Cuban Americans. The existing restrictions on travel raise serious constitutional and international human rights concerns. The Administration should take corrective measures which would bring the U.S. closer to compliance with the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law.
|
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
|
the U.S. has yet to eliminate the unlawful prohibition against travel to Cuba The existing restrictions raise serious constitutional and international human rights concerns. The Administration should take corrective measures which would bring the U.S. closer to compliance with the U.S. Constitution and international law
|
Travel ban violates international law
| 659 | 37 | 321 | 94 | 5 | 45 | 0.053191 | 0.478723 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,659 |
Finally, allowing permissible travel to Cuba would be one step in bringing the U.S. into compliance with the mandates of international law. The United Nations has passed near unanimous resolutions condemning the U.S. embargo against Cuba, including its travel ban, as a violation of international law every year since 1992. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), to which the United States is a party, recognize the fundamental nature and importance of protecting the freedom of movement. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration in part provides that: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."3 Similarly, Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees that "Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own," and further states that this right "shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant."4 None of these exceptions are triggered in the case of travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba.
|
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
|
allowing permissible travel to Cuba would be one step in bringing the U.S. into compliance with international law. The United Nations has passed near unanimous resolutions condemning the travel ban, as a violation of international law
|
Removing the ban aligns US with international law
| 1,249 | 49 | 235 | 199 | 8 | 36 | 0.040201 | 0.180905 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,660 |
3. U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba would significantly bolster sales of U.S. ¶ agricultural goods to Cuba. ¶ • If restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba were lifted, the annual U.S. share of ¶ Cuba's total agricultural imports would nearly double to as much as 64%, from ¶ the current 38%, an increase of up to $483 million in sales to Cuba, according to ¶ 2008 figures from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). ¶ • According to the USITC, U.S. sales to Cuba could reach $1 billion, or nearly a ¶ two-thirds share of the market – but only with a substantial increase in the ¶ numbers of tourists traveling to the island. The Commission indicates that ¶ removing financial and travel restrictions on Cuba would result in at least a 300 ¶ percent increase in American visitors to the island – such a jump could result in as ¶ many as a million U.S. visitors per year. ¶ • This increase in American tourism to Cuba would vastly increase U.S. ¶ agricultural sales to Cuba, for example: ¶ driving up general demand for a variety of staples such as wheat, poultry ¶ and eggs. ¶ increasing demand for brands of processed food such as soft drinks and ¶ snacks that are familiar to American tourists, as well as luxury items like ¶ California wine, Pacific wild salmon and Florida Black Angus beef. ¶ • If restrictions on travel and trade were removed, sales of 15 of the top 16 U.S. commodities exported to Cuba would increase. ¶ According to projections by the U.S. International Trade Commission. ¶ Sales of wheat would increase ($17 million to $34 million); rice ($14 ¶ million to $44 million); fresh potatoes, fruits, and vegetables (a rise of $37 ¶ million to $68 million annually); processed foods ($26 million to $41 ¶ million); milk powder ($15 million to $42 million); dry beans ($9 million ¶ to $22 million); and poultry, beef, and pork each increasing by about $9 ¶ million to $13 million). (USITC, 4-4) ¶ • In these difficult economic times, it is in our best interest to allow greater trade ¶ opportunities, such as in Cuba, for American businesses to sell their goods abroad.
|
Center for Democracy in the Americas et al 9 [Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America Working Group, the Lexington Institute, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, TRAVEL TO CUBA HELPS U.S. FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL BUSINNESS IN OUR NATIONAL, 2009, INTERESTS http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/trade_talking_points.pdf]
|
. U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba would significantly bolster sales of U.S. agricultural goods If restrictions on travel to Cuba were lifted the annual U.S. share of Cuba's total agricultural imports would nearly double U.S. sales to Cuba could reach $1 billion, but only with a substantial increase in the numbers of tourists traveling to the island removing travel restrictions would result in at least a 300 percent increase in American visitors to the island This increase in American tourism to Cuba would vastly increase U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba driving up general demand for a variety of staples such as wheat, poultry and eggs. increasing demand for brands of processed food such as soft drinks and snacks that are familiar to American tourists
|
Tourism leads to growth of US agriculture
| 2,095 | 41 | 759 | 373 | 7 | 124 | 0.018767 | 0.33244 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,661 |
If the United States truly wishes to improve its relationship with the Cuban government and to strengthen ties with other leaders across Latin America, it must part ways with its archaic policies by engaging the island nation and taking a more responsible approach toward promoting freedom across Cuba. Congressman James McGovern (D-MA), a co-sponsor of H.R. 874, effectively summarized his colleagues’ goals for building a constructive relationship with Cuba during a February statement on the floor. He stated that “if we are truly going to do a better job of standing with the Cuban people, then we need to be closer to them and in greater numbers. We need to travel freely to the island to meet and to learn from them and they from us.” Many Americans share Representative McGovern’s sentiments and see free travel to Cuba as a way to jumpstart talks between the two nations. Unfortunately, it appears that efforts to implement this straightforward policy remain bogged down by an influential group of opponents and a series of setbacks that have kept Cuba and the U.S. at odds. Given these regrettable conditions, it is doubtful that new travel laws, which would expose ordinary Cubans to American culture and boost Cuba’s tourism industry and informal economy, will be implemented any time soon.
|
Patchen and Rodriguez, 10 [Carl Patchen and Katya Rodriguez, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Travel to Cuba Legislation Mired by Scandal, Fierce Opposition,” Truthout, 5/22/10, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/89731:travel-to-cuba-legislation-mired-by-scandal-fierce-opposition]
|
If the U S wishes to improve its relationship with the Cuban government and to strengthen ties with other leaders across Latin America, it must part ways with its archaic policies we need to be closer to them and in greater numbers We need to travel freely to the island to meet and to learn from them and they from us Many see free travel to Cuba as a way to jumpstart talks between the two nations
|
Plan jumpstarts larger changes in US-Cuba relations
| 1,301 | 51 | 399 | 214 | 7 | 77 | 0.03271 | 0.359813 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,662 |
Right-wing U.S. Republicans are up in arms over Cuba again. Their ostensible cause for concern is last week's visit to the island by Beyoncé and Jay-Z, who were photographed in Havana, apparently celebrating their wedding anniversary. Read more: Lawmakers ask why Beyoncé and Jay-Z went to Cuba These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. The 60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up. Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens' travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear among right-wingers. Two key factors have changed since the days -- not so long ago -- when Washington seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style overthrow. One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat. As Barack Obama enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may use his freedom of action to effect an historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals certainly believe he should do so. The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform. The government -- dubbed the world's longest-running dictatorship by the American right -- has even set a date for its own dissolution. Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career communist, first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen. The two Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population. The Cuban vote, as it is known, has traditionally gone to Republicans. But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate and division. He broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the past may be breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The National Interest. "Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said. Little wonder Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political raison d'etre. There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial. Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba. The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China. The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU. But more importantly, the continued ostracism of Cuba's people -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.
|
Tisdall, Simon, 4/8/13 (Simon Tisdall is assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House correspondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., “Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up”, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba)
|
60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter Chavez did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU.
|
Good US-Cuba Relations key to US hegemony
| 4,791 | 41 | 750 | 790 | 7 | 126 | 0.008861 | 0.159494 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,663 |
The dictionary says that leadership means going ahead or showing the way. To lead is to help a group define and achieve a common purpose. There are various types and levels of leadership, but all have in common a relationship with followers. Thus leadership and power are inextricably intertwined. I will argue below that many leadership skills such as creating a vision, communicating it, attracting and choosing able people, delegating, and forming coalitions depend upon what I call soft power. But first we should ask, what is power? What is power? At the most general level, power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants. There are several ways to affect the behavior of others. You can coerce them with threats. You can induce them with payments. Or you can attract or co-opt them. Sometimes I can affect your behavior without commanding it. If you believe that my objectives are legitimate, I may be able to persuade you without using threats or inducements. For example, loyal Catholics may follow the Pope's teaching on capital punishment not because of a threat of excommunication, but out of respect for his moral authority. Or some radical Muslims may be attracted to support Osama bin Laden's actions not because of payments or threats, but because they believe in the legitimacy of his objectives. Practical politicians and ordinary people often simply define power as the possession of capabilities or resources that can influence outcomes. Someone who has authority, wealth, or an attractive personality is called powerful. In international politics, by this second definition, we consider a country powerful if it has a relatively large population, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. The virtue of this second definition is that it makes power appear more concrete, measurable, and predictable. Power in this sense is like holding the high cards in a card game. But when people define power as synonymous with the resources that produce it, they sometimes encounter the paradox that those most endowed with power do not always get the outcomes they want. For example, in terms of resources, the United States was the world's only superpower in 2001, but it failed to prevent September 11. Converting resources into realized power in the sense of obtaining desired outcomes requires well-designed strategies and skillful leadership. Yet strategies are often inadequate and leaders frequently misjudge—witness Hitler in 1941 or Saddam Hussein in 1990. Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. Measuring power in terms of resources is an imperfect but useful shorthand. It is equally important to understand which resources provide the best basis for power behavior in a particular context. Oil was not an impressive power resource before the industrial age, nor was uranium significant before the nuclear age. Power resources cannot be judged without knowing the context. In some situations those who hold high office, command force, or possess wealth are not the most powerful. That is what revolutions are about. Soft power Everyone is familiar with hard power. We know that military and economic might often get others to change their position. Hard power can rest on inducements ("carrots") or threats ("sticks"). But sometimes you can get the outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. The indirect way to get what you want has sometimes been called "the second face of power." A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries admire its values, emulate its example, aspire to its level of prosperity and openness. This soft power—getting others to want the outcomes that you want—co-opts people rather than coerces them. Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. In the business world, smart executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves leading by example and attracting others to do what you want. Similarly, contemporary practices of community-based policing rely on making the police sufficiently friendly and attractive that a community wants to help them achieve shared objectives. Political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to use carrots or sticks to make you do it. Soft power is a staple of daily democratic politics. The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If a leader represents values that others want to follow, it will cost less to lead. Soft power is not merely the same as influence. After all, influence can also rest on the hard power of threats or payments. And soft power is more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument, though that is an important part of it. It is also the ability to attract, and attraction often leads to acquiescence. Simply put, in behavioral terms, soft power is attractive power. Soft power resources are the assets that produce such attraction. If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking place—in short, if my behavior is determined by an observable but intangible attraction—soft power is at work. Soft power uses a different type of currency—not force, not money—to engender cooperation. It uses an attraction to shared values, and the justness and duty of contributing to the achievement of those values. The interplay between hard and soft power Hard and soft power are related because they are both aspects of the ability to achieve one's purpose by affecting the behavior of others. The distinction between them is one of degree, both in the nature of the behavior and in the tangibility of the resources. Command power—the ability to change what others do—can rest on coercion or inducement. Co-optive power—the ability to shape what others want—can rest on the attractiveness of one's culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic. The types of behavior between command and co-option range along a spectrum from coercion to economic inducement to agenda-setting to pure attraction. Soft power resources tend to be associated with the co-optive end of the spectrum of behavior, whereas hard power resources are usually associated with command behavior. Hard and soft power sometimes reinforce and sometimes interfere with each other. A leader who courts popularity may be loath to exercise hard power when he should, but a leader who throws his weight around without regard to the effects on his soft power may find others placing obstacles in the way of his hard power. The limits of soft power Some skeptics object to the idea of soft power because they think of power narrowly in terms of commands or active control. In their view, imitation or attraction do not add up to power. Some imitation or attraction does not produce much power over policy outcomes, and neither does imitation always produce desirable outcomes. For example, armies frequently imitate and therefore nullify the successful tactics of their opponents and make it more difficult for them to achieve the outcomes they want. But attraction often does allow you to get what you want. The skeptics who want to define power only as deliberate acts of command and control are ignoring the second or "structural" face of power—the ability to get the outcomes you want without having to force people to change their behavior through threats or payments. At the same time, it is important to specify the conditions under which attraction is more likely to lead to desired outcomes, and those when it will not. All power depends on context—who relates to whom under what circumstances—but soft power depends more than hard power upon the existence of willing interpreters and receivers. Moreover, attraction often has a diffuse effect of creating general influence, rather than producing an easily observable specific action. Just as money can be invested, politicians speak of storing up political capital to be drawn upon in future circumstances. Of course, such goodwill may not ultimately be honored, and diffuse reciprocity is less tangible than an immediate exchange. Nonetheless, the indirect effects of attraction and a diffuse influence can make a significant difference in obtaining favorable outcomes in bargaining situations. Otherwise leaders would insist only on immediate payoffs and specific reciprocity, and we know that is not always the way they behave. Soft power is also likely to be more important when power is dispersed. A dictator cannot be totally indifferent to the views of the people under his rule, but he can often ignore popularity when he calculates his interests. In settings where opinions matter, leaders have less leeway to adopt tactics and strike deals. Thus it was impossible for the Turkish government to permit the transport of American troops across the country in 2003, because American policies had greatly reduced our popularity there. In contrast, it was far easier for the United States to obtain the use of bases in authoritarian Uzbekistan for operations in Afghanistan. The information revolution The conditions for projecting soft power have transformed dramatically in recent years. The information revolution and globalization are transforming and shrinking the world. At the beginning of the 21st century, those two forces have enhanced American power. But with time, technology will spread to other countries and peoples, and America's relative preeminence will diminish. Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes. Even more important, the information revolution is creating virtual communities and networks that cut across national borders. Transnational corporations and nongovernmental actors will play larger roles. Many of those organizations will have soft power of their own as they attract citizens into coalitions that cut across national boundaries. Political leadership becomes in part a competition for attractiveness, legitimacy, and credibility. The ability to share information—and to be believed—becomes an important source of attraction and power. This political game in a global information age suggests that the relative role of soft power to hard power will likely increase. The most likely gainers in an information age will have: multiple channels of communication that help to frame issues, cultural customs and ideas that are close to prevailing global norms, and credibility that is enhanced by values and policies. Soft power resources are difficult to control. Many of its crucial resources are outside the control of governments, and their effects depend heavily on acceptance by the receiving audiences. Moreover, soft power resources often work indirectly by shaping the environment for policy, and sometimes take years to produce the desired outcomes. Of course, these differences are matters of degree. Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes—witness the length and ultimate failure of the Vietnam War, or the fact that economic sanctions have historically failed to produce their intended outcomes in more than half the cases where they were tried. But generally, soft power resources are slower, more diffuse, and more cumbersome to wield than hard power resources. Information is power, and today a much larger part of the world's population has access to that power. Technological advances have led to dramatic reduction in the cost of processing and transmitting information. The result is an explosion of information, and that has produced a "paradox of plenty." When people are overwhelmed with the volume of information confronting them, it is hard to know what to focus on. Attention rather than information becomes the scarce resource, and those who can distinguish valuable information from background clutter gain power. Editors and cue-givers become more in demand. Among editors and cue-givers, credibility is an important source of soft power. Politics has become a contest of competitive credibility. The world of traditional power politics is typically about whose military or economy wins. Politics in an information age may ultimately be about whose story wins. Reputation has always mattered in political leadership, but the role of credibility becomes an even more important power resource because of the paradox of plenty. Information that appears to be propaganda may not only be scorned; it may also turn out to be counterproductive if it undermines a reputation for credibility. Under the new conditions more than ever, the soft sell may prove more effective than a hard sell. Finally, power in an information age will come not just from strong hard power, but from strong sharing. In an information age, such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases their inclination to do so. As we share with others, we develop common outlooks and approaches that improve our ability to deal with the new challenges. Power flows from that attraction. Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely ephemeral popularity ignores key insights from new theories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. Conclusion Soft power has always been a key element of leadership. The power to attract—to get others to want what you want, to frame the issues, to set the agenda—has its roots in thousands of years of human experience. Skillful leaders have always understood that attractiveness stems from credibility and legitimacy. Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear. When the United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in the way it went about its policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop in American soft power. That did not prevent the United States from entering Iraq, but it meant that it had to pay higher costs in the blood and treasure than would otherwise have been the case. Similarly, if Yasser Arafat had chosen the soft power model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King rather than the hard power of terrorism, he could have attracted moderate Israelis and would have a Palestinian state by now. I said at the start that leadership is inextricably intertwined with power. Leaders have to make crucial choices about the types of power that they use. Woe be to followers of those leaders who ignore or devalue the significance of soft power.
|
Nye, Joseph Jr., 2004 (Joseph Samuel Nye, Jr. (born January 19, 1937) is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently holds the position of University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University[ where he has been a member of the faculty since 1964, “The Benefits of Soft Power”, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html)
|
leadership depend upon what I call soft power when people define power as synonymous with the resources that produce it, they encounter the paradox that those most endowed with power do not always get the outcomes they want. For example, , the United States was the only superpower in 2001, but it failed to prevent September 11. Converting resources into realized power in the sense of obtaining desired outcomes requires well-designed strategies and skillful leadership. Yet strategies are often inadequate and leaders frequently misjudge—witness Hitler in 1941 or Saddam Hussein in 1990. Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. Measuring power in terms of resources is an imperfect shorthand you can get the outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to use carrots or sticks to make you do it Hard and soft power reinforce each other a leader who throws his weight around without regard to the effects on his soft power may find others placing obstacles in the way of his hard power. soft power often does allow you to get what you want. attraction often has a diffuse effect of creating general influence the indirect effects of attraction and a diffuse influence can make a significant difference in obtaining favorable outcomes in bargaining situations. the relative role of soft power to hard power will increase the soft sell may prove more effective than a hard sell. Power flows from that attraction. Soft power has always been a key element of leadership. if Yasser Arafat had chosen the soft power model rather than the hard power of terrorism, he could have attracted moderate Israelis and would have a Palestinian state by now Woe be to followers of those leaders who ignore or devalue the significance of soft power.
|
Soft Power is key to Hegemony
| 14,866 | 29 | 1,903 | 2,384 | 6 | 325 | 0.002517 | 0.136326 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,664 |
In addition to helping to create the substantial market Cuba should provide ¶ American farmers, travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens helps in creating the kind of ¶ dialogue and social interchange that Cuba hasn’t seen in decades. ¶ • People-to-people exchange between Americans and Cubans promotes ¶ understanding, transmits ideas, and generates debate. As Cuba’s people and ¶ government contemplate their future, unrestricted American travel to Cuba will ¶ help position our people, our values, and our businesses, and enhance our ¶ influence.
|
Center for Democracy in the Americas et al 9 [Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America Working Group, the Lexington Institute, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, TRAVEL TO CUBA HELPS U.S. FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL BUSINNESS IN OUR NATIONAL, 2009, INTERESTS http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/trade_talking_points.pdf]
|
People-to-people exchange promotes ¶ understanding unrestricted American travel to Cuba will ¶ help position our people our businesses, and enhance our ¶ influence
|
Plan leads to increased influence over Cuba
| 540 | 43 | 163 | 84 | 7 | 23 | 0.083333 | 0.27381 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,665 |
When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability. Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades. n6 As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana, America's reputation [*192] in the region has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries. n7 For fifty years, Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's economic image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own. n8 In short, America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. To that end, warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.
|
Perez 10 – J.D. Yale Law School (David A. Perez, Harvard Latino Law Review 13 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 187, “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department”, Spring, 2010, accessed 6/26/13)
|
When analyzing ecosystems scientists seek out "keystone species These are organisms that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for the entire system's stability. Cuba is a keystone nation in Latin America having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades As a result of its continuing tensions America's reputation has suffered, as has its ability to deal with other countries For fifty years, Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration if it wants to repair America's economic image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own In short, America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example To that end, warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.
|
Cuba is critical to America’s image in LA
| 1,096 | 41 | 978 | 177 | 8 | 159 | 0.045198 | 0.898305 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,666 |
Economic diversification requires finding an instrument that identifies visitor preferences in a market in a hypothetical post-opening of Cuba-U.S. tourism. Previous work has found that measures of national culture (or cultural distance) are a useful instrument for predicting such preferences. In other words, measures of cultural distance identify OECD tourists with destination preferences that differ from U.S. tourists. As the likelihood of Cuba opening to U.S. tourism were to rise, Caribbean competitors would need to hedge potential tourist losses to Cuba by diversifying to from US. tourists, therefore diversifying the Cuban economy, and toward culturally different countries. This effect would be strongest and most observable for Caribbran destinations that are most dependent on U.S. tourists. This effect would also be most observable whenever it were to appear that the Cuba-U.S. tourism restrictions might be lifted. In such times, heavily U.S.-dependent countries would have a strong incentive to diversify away from U.S. tourists, that is, reduce * in Equation (8). At times when these tourism restrictions are very unlikely to end, they would have little incentive to do so.
|
Romeu 8 - a Senior Economist at the International Monetary Fund, where he has worked since 2001 (Rafael Romeu, IMF, “Vacation Over: Implications for the Caribbean of Opening U.S.-Cuba Tourism,” published July 2008, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08162.pdf, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
|
Economic diversification requires finding visitor preferences in a market in a hypothetical opening of Cuba-U.S. tourism measures of national culture are useful for predicting such preferences As Cuba opening to U.S. tourism were to rise, Caribbean competitors would hedge tourist losses to Cuba
|
US travel to Cuba trades-off with travel to other Caribbean states
| 1,193 | 66 | 295 | 178 | 11 | 43 | 0.061798 | 0.241573 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,667 |
The travel industry and tourism have had significant effects on the Caribbean region. These effects range from positive to negative, particularly in relation to the local cultures, policies, economies, environments and people of the many Caribbean islands. The major effect is that many Caribbean island countries' economies are highly reliant on the travel and tourism industry.¶ Effects on Culture¶ Each Caribbean island tries to maintain its own distinct history and culture. When these cultures come into contact with the strong forces of globalization, maintaining traditional local culture often becomes quite difficult.¶ Effects on Politics¶ Island governments often have a ministry of tourism to oversee the country's advocacy for increased tourism and travel industry development, which adds jobs and contributes to an island's economy.¶ Effects on Economy¶ Economic effects, both positive and negative, are perhaps the most visible of tourism effects on the Caribbean. These include island nations' utmost reliance on tourism and travel as the predominant industry. However, because many tour and travel companies are not always based in a particular island country, much of the profit does not stay on the island.¶ Effects from Industry Cycles¶ Travel and tourism can be a very cyclical industry, with travel increasing and decreasing as a result of fluctuations in the global economy. When the travel industry is bustling, the Caribbean is able to attract many visitors from around the world, but in tough economic times fewer people spend money on travel, leading to fewer people visiting and spending money in the Caribbean.¶ Effects on Environment¶ Tourism can have environmental effects on Caribbean islands, such as hordes of cruise ship tourists flocking onto and off of islands each day, consuming energy and resources. Additionally, local ecosystems and environments can be affected by cruise ship and land-based resort activities
|
McDaniel 10 – Paul holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in geography from Samford University and the University of Tennessee and a Master of Arts in Education from the University of Alabama. He is pursuing a Ph.D. in geography from the University of North Carolina. [http://www.ehow.com/facts_5561618_effects-tourism-caribbean.html The Effects of Tourism in the Caribbean 6.29.13]
|
tourism had significant effects on the Caribbean region The Caribbean tries to maintain its culture. When these cultures contact globalization, maintaining local culture becomes difficult.¶ the profit does not stay on the island Tourism can have environmental effects on Caribbean islands, such as hordes of tourists consuming energy and resources. Additionally, local ecosystems and environments can be affected by cruise ship and land-based resort activities
|
Tourism ruins Caribbean culture and economy—it also ruins the environment and cultural stability
| 1,950 | 96 | 460 | 295 | 13 | 65 | 0.044068 | 0.220339 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,668 |
US President Barack Obama has fulfilled a promise made to Cuban-Americans during last year's presidential campaign to ease travel restrictions allowing them to visit Cuba as they wish, and to send money back home to their dependents.¶ This decision has caused more than a ripple of concern among tourism authorities in some Caribbean countries, and contradictory statements have been issued about the likely effect on their tourism industries.¶ The reality is that Caribbean countries have little to fear from President Obama's policy. Easing travel for Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba will have little or no effect on other Caribbean destinations. Very few Cuban-Americans travel on holiday to Caribbean countries.¶ The real impact on Caribbean tourism will come when the US and Cuba normalize relations and the 49-year-old US embargo on Cuba comes to an end.¶ But the worry that Obama's decision has created in some Caribbean countries is a good thing. None of them should predicate the development of their tourist industry on a continuing trade blockade of Cuba by the US. Sooner or later the embargo will be lifted and Cuba will be a strong and direct competitor with other Caribbean countries for US tourists and US investment in the tourist industry. Neighboring Caribbean countries must therefore prepare themselves for this competition and be ready to meet it.¶ Hopefully, the concern generated by the easing of travel restrictions to Cuba for Cuban-Americans will catapult other Caribbean countries into serious planning for the lifting of the US embargo.
|
Sanders 09 [Sir Ronald, 4/19. Sir Ronald Sanders is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London in the UK. He is an International Consultant, Writer and former senior Caribbean Ambassador. http://www.eturbonews.com/8860/caribbean-cannot-base-tourism-us-embargo-against-cuba 6.28.13]
|
a ripple of concern among tourism authorities in Caribbean countries, and contradictory statements issued about the likely effect on their tourism industries The real impact on Caribbean tourism will come when the US embargo on Cuba comes to an end the embargo will be lifted and Cuba will be a strong and direct competitor with other Caribbean countries for US tourists
|
Increased Travel to Cuba will be devastating for Caribbean economies
| 1,569 | 68 | 372 | 248 | 10 | 61 | 0.040323 | 0.245968 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,669 |
Tourism is vital to the entire Caribbean region, contributing an estimated 14.2 percent of the region's Gross Domestic Product in 2011, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council. A survey undertaken by the Oxford Economic organization in 2010 found that tourism played a larger role in the Caribbean economy than it did in any of the world's other equivalent areas. Yet the majority of this income -- perhaps as high as 80 cents in every dollar -- "leaks out" of the Caribbean.¶ The tourism industry is a major employer throughout the region, directly supporting an estimated 687,000 jobs and another 2,167,000 indirectly in 2011. However, many of these jobs are seasonal and very low-paid, while the money generated by internationally funded projects fails to reach locals. In fact, only 15 percent of the Chinese-funded Baha Mar construction project in the Bahamas found its way to local laborers. On many islands, a racial divide appears to exist, on the one hand, between the owners of tourist facilities, and, on the other hand, the workers at the tourist establishments, according to former Caribbean ambassador Sir Ronald Sanders.¶ Local Development¶ Tourism could have a tremendous beneficial impact on local economies, but many hotels source their food and cleaning products from abroad rather than purchasing them from local producers. An Oxfam study found that hotels in St. Lucia imported more than 70 percent of their produce every year. Local farmers cannot compete internationally and have suffered from a decline in the banana trade, but Oxfam and other organizations are encouraging hotels to source food from local farmers, and by doing so keeping the tourist income within the community and supporting farmer's efforts to diversify their crops. For some hotels and restaurants, shopping locally adds a more authentic flavor to the products that they offer tourism and is a selling point in itself. For example, the Ocean Terrace Inn (oceanterraceinn.com) in St. Kitts prides itself on serving food made using locally sourced ingredients.¶ Water Resources¶ Tourism makes huge demands on the Caribbean's water resources that is used for drinking, cooking, washing, swimming pools and air conditioning, reducing the volume of water available to local people. One study found that the average guest in Jamaica uses between 645 and 2,086 liters per night, compared with between 95 and 729 liters per guest per night in the United Kingdom. Several hotels have implemented programs to reduce their water use and make it more efficient. Installing gravity-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads can reduce the amount of water used by guests.¶ Environment¶ Tourism can be harmful to the environment in a variety of ways. Cruise ships sailing through the Caribbean dump waste into the sea; one 2002 study found that a ship carrying 2,000 passengers and 1,000 crew generated the same amount of waste as a small city. This waste, including oil residues, harms marine ecosystems, including coral reefs. Groups such as the Caribbean Tourism Organization are promoting more sustainable tourism projects that attempt to reduce the impact of tourism on the local environment, while the United Nations' Caribbean Environment Program supports this effort with the Cartagena Convention. The Convention aims to protect the Caribbean's delicate marine environment by establishing a series of protocols on combating oil spills, creating protected areas and dealing with pollution from the land.
|
Kennedy 11 [Rita, is a writer and researcher and holds a Ph.D. in history and an honors degree in geography from the University of Ulster. http://traveltips.usatoday.com/effects-tourism-caribbean-63368.html 6.28.13]
|
Tourism is vital to the entire Caribbean region, tourism played a larger role in the Caribbean economy than it did in any of the world's other equivalent areas. The tourism industry is a major employer throughout the region, However, many of these jobs are seasonal and very low-paid, while the money generated by projects fails to reach locals a racial divide appears to exist between the owners and the workers at the tourist establishments many hotels source their products from abroad rather than local producers Local farmers cannot compete internationally Tourism makes huge demands on the Caribbean's water resources reducing the volume of water available to local people Tourism can be harmful to the environment Cruise ships sailing through the Caribbean dump waste into the sea This waste, including oil residues, harms marine ecosystems, including coral reefs
|
Tourism in the Caribbean negatively affects the environment, and the social sector—studies prove income from tourism doesn’t outweigh the negative effects
| 3,500 | 154 | 872 | 550 | 21 | 137 | 0.038182 | 0.249091 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,670 |
A week or so ago, the Board of the Caribbean Hotels and Tourism Association (CHTA) passed unanimously a resolution calling on Caribbean Heads of Government to convene a summit on tourism. What the private sector body wants is for urgent high level consideration to be given to the many challenges now facing the industry and the threats these pose to region’s tourism-dependent economy. ¶ Since then their request has been dismissed by some commentators as posturing. ¶ Why this should be is in part a reflection of a sense across the region that the industry, and hoteliers in particular, are too well off, that tourism largely involves foreigners, and that those who run it have been crying wolf for too long, without offering solutions that the region’s political leadership can relate to. ¶ The matter is not helped by there being an uncertain hiatus between the retirement of CHTA’s Director General, and the appointment of a successor; with the consequence that there is, as yet, no indication of who is to follow through, to ensure that such a high level exchange might occur. ¶ Despite this, there is real merit in the concerns expressed by CHTA and a clear need for a policy dialogue on key issues between all key stakeholders in and beyond the region on the future of what has become a highly complex and vital industry. ¶ It may of course not be possible to bring all Heads together, but there would be real value if one, or better still a small group of Prime Ministers who understand the political, economic and social dimensions of tourism, were to provide the political leadership necessary to create such an encounter. This would have particular value if such a group were able to report to their colleagues on the political steps required to enable Caribbean tourism to remain fresh, viable and able to provide sustainable long term support for the Caribbean economy.¶ The reality of Caribbean tourism today is that although the number of visitor arrivals into the region is again increasing, the value of the tourism economy is moving in the other direction: since 2007, for example, annual visitor spend has fallen by US$5 billion. Governments ignore this at their peril. If income is falling and profitability has yet to reach pre-2007 levels, it suggests that the Caribbean is becoming less competitive in relation to other destinations, and that current levels of tourism employment and tax revenue may not be sustainable. ¶ There is no shortage of statistics or professional advice to suggest this, but a dearth of industry voices able to articulate this clearly or politically and promote a serious debate not about where the industry now is, but where it might be in twenty years time.¶ What is even odder is that beyond this there is little if any interest by governments or regional institutions in the econometric modelling of the Caribbean industry to enable the development of models into which assumptions that for instance demonstrate whether the reduction or increase in taxes bring greater or lesser returns. As a consequence, taxes go up, airlines are incentivised and tax holidays are granted without there being any clear understanding of whether the short, medium or long term impact is likely to be positive or negative. For an industry worth more than US$25 billion per annum and which employs at least thirteen per cent of the region’s workforce, this is truly disturbing.¶
|
Jessop, 2/1 [David Jessop, Director of the Caribbean Council, “The long-term future of Caribbean tourism”, 2/1/13, http://www.caribbean-council.org/sites/default/files/colfeb1%20(The%20future%20of%20Caribbean%20tourism%201).doc, 6/30/13]
|
that although the number of visitor arrivals into the region is again increasing, the value of the tourism economy is moving in the other direction: since 2007, , annual visitor spend has fallen by US$5 billion. current levels of tourism employment and tax revenue may not be sustainable. ¶ There is no shortage of statistics or professional advice to suggest this For an industry worth more than US$25 billion per annum and which employs at least thirteen per cent of the region’s workforce, this is truly disturbing.
|
The Caribbean tourism industry is low now, and will continue to fall
| 3,414 | 68 | 518 | 573 | 12 | 87 | 0.020942 | 0.151832 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,671 |
CAYO COCO, Cuba — After Cuban scientists studied the effects of climate change on this island's 3,500 miles of coastline, their discoveries were so alarming that officials didn't share the results with the public to avoid causing panic.¶ The scientists projected that rising sea levels would seriously damage 122 Cuban towns or even wipe them off the map.¶ Beaches would be submerged, they found, while freshwater sources would be tainted and croplands rendered infertile. In all, seawater would penetrate up to 1.2 miles inland in low-lying areas, as oceans rose nearly three feet by 2100.¶ Climate change may be a matter of political debate on Capitol Hill, but for low-lying Cuba, those frightening calculations have spurred systemic action.¶ Cuba's government has changed course on decades of haphazard coastal development, which threatens sand dunes and mangrove swamps that provide the best natural protection against rising seas.¶ In recent months, inspectors and demolition crews have begun fanning out across the island with plans to raze thousands of houses, restaurants, hotels and improvised docks in a race to restore much of the coast to something approaching its natural state.¶ "The government ... realized that for an island like Cuba, long and thin, protecting the coasts is a matter of national security," said Jorge Alvarez, director of Cuba's government-run Center for Environmental Control and Inspection.¶ At the same time, Cuba has had to take into account the needs sof families living in endangered homes and a $2.5 billion-a-year tourism industry that is its No. 1 source of foreign income.¶ It's a predicament challenging the entire Caribbean, where resorts and private homes often have popped up in many places without any forethought. Enforcement of planning and environmental laws is also often spotty.¶ With its coastal towns and cities, the Caribbean is one of the regions most at risk from a changing climate. Hundreds of villages are threatened by rising seas, and more frequent and stronger hurricanes have devastated agriculture in Haiti and elsewhere.¶ In Cuba, the report predicted sea levels would rise nearly three feet by century's end.¶ "Different countries are vulnerable depending on a number of factors, the coastline and what coastal development looks like," said Dan Whittle, Cuba program director for the New York-based nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.¶ He said the Cuban study's numbers seem consistent with other scientists' forecasts for the region. The Associated Press was given exclusive access to the report, but not permitted to keep a copy.¶ Cuba's preparations were on clear display on a recent morning tour of Guanabo, a popular getaway for Havana residents known for its soft sand and gentle waves 15 miles (25 kilometers) east of the capital.¶ Where a military barracks had been demolished, a reintroduced sand-stabilizing creeper vine known as beach morning glory is reasserting itself on the dunes, one lavender blossom at a time.¶ The demolition nearby of a former swimming school was halted due to the lack of planning, with the building's rubble left as it lay. Now inspectors have to figure out how to fix the mess without doing further environmental damage.¶ Alvarez said the government has learned from such early mistakes and is proceeding more cautiously. Officials also are also considering engineering solutions, and even determining whether it would be better to simply leave some buildings alone.¶ For three decades Guanabo resident Felix Rodriguez has lived the dream of any traveler to the Caribbean: waking up with waves softly lapping at the sand just steps away, a salty breeze blowing through the window and seagulls cawing as they glide through the crisp blue sky. Now that paradise may be no more.¶ "The sea has been creeping ever closer," said Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retiree, pointing to the water line steps from his apartment building. "Thirty years ago it was 30 meters (33 yards) farther out."¶ "We'd all like to live next to the sea, but it's dangerous ... very dangerous," Rodriguez said. "When a hurricane comes, everyone here will just disappear."¶ Cuban officials agree, and have notified him and 11 other families in the building that they will be relocated, though no date has been set. Rodriguez and several other residents said they didn't mind, given the danger.¶ Since 2000, Cuba has had a coastal protection law on the books that prohibits construction on top of sand and mandates a 130-foot-wide (40-meter) buffer zone from dunes. Structures that predate the measure have been granted a stay of execution, but are not to be maintained and ultimately will be torn down once they're uninhabitable.¶ Serious enforcement only began in earnest in recent months, as officials came armed with the risk assessment.¶
|
Rodriguez 6/12 – meteorologist for the Weather Channel, PhD. (Andrea Rodriguez, The Weather Channel, “Cuba Girds for Climate Change by Reclaiming Coasts,” 6/12/13, http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/cuba-girds-climate-change-reclaiming-coasts-20130612, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
|
The scientists projected that rising sea levels would seriously damage 122 Cuban towns Beaches would be submerged freshwater sources would be tainted and croplands rendered infertile Cuba's government has changed course on decades of haphazard coastal development, . inspectors and demolition crews have begun fanning out across the island with plans to restore much of the coast to The government ... realized that for an island like Cuba, long and thin, protecting the coasts is a matter of national security
|
Not unique- Cuban government already working to improve environment
| 4,816 | 67 | 510 | 769 | 9 | 80 | 0.011704 | 0.104031 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,672 |
The head of the North, Central America and Mexico Area of the Cuban Communist Party International Relations Department, Alberto Prieto, put forth the Cuban position at the forum. Prieto said that Cuba is determined to develop a more efficient and sustainable economy in the benefit of the people and in full harmony with the environment. The official said the strategic guidelines of the Cuban Revolution include the design of an integral scientific, technological, innovative and environmental policy in correspondence with the country’s social and economic development. This policy aims at meeting the needs of the people and at encouraging their participation in the construction of the socialist society by protecting the environment, the national heritage and culture, Prieto explained. The guidelines, adopted by the latest congress of the Cuban Communist Party, also include the development of comprehensive research to protect and rehabilitate the environment and adapt policies to the new economic and social scenarios. However, he said, such efforts are to be taken amidst the stiffening of the US economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba, which has inflicted huge loss to the Caribbean nation. Prieto stressed the ideas of Revolution leader Fidel Castro on climate change and the protection of the environment. Experts from several Latin American countries, gathered in San Salvador, are addressing ways to harmonize social and economic development with nature. The forum, which is being sponsored by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, is being attended by representatives from Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela and Norway, along with several Salvadorian organizations.(ACN)
|
Radio Cadena Gramonte, 6/26 – (“Cuba Affirms Commitment to the Environment”, Radio Cadena Gramonte, http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english/index.php/show/articles/14774:cuba-affirms-commitment-to-the-environment)//AB
|
Cuba is determined to develop a more efficient and sustainable economy environmental policy aims at meeting the needs of the people and protecting the environment, the national heritage and culture
|
Cuba has incredibly strong policies to keep the environment intact despite other factors
| 1,717 | 88 | 199 | 255 | 13 | 30 | 0.05098 | 0.117647 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,673 |
Cuba now has a dedicated entity for ecotourism, the National Commission for Ecotourism. The Commission is comprised of officials from CITMA, MinTur, and the Ministry of Agriculture and publishes guidelines and criteria for ecotourism, approves guides and tour leaders, and promotes tour packages worldwide.189 Several state-owned companies now exclusively book and operate eco-tours. Working with CITMA, MinTur, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Commission, the IPF in the Ministry of Planning has identified 50 areas with nature tourism potential throughout coastal and interior Cuba.190 Many, but not all of these, are in national parks or other protected areas and emphasize ecotourism over other natural tourism offerings.191 And though income from ecotourism and other forms of nature tourism still represents a small percentage of Cuba’s tourism-based revenues, their popularity is on the rise. In 1999, revenues from ecotourism packages were $11 million, in 2000 they had almost doubled to $19 million, and by the end of 2001, ecotourism generated $25 million in income.192 Cuba’s intention to develop and expand ecotourism is promising, but not without its skeptics. They fear that these efforts could easily be overwhelmed by the attention given to conventional “large-scale beach and urban tourism” and observe that “[m]any Cubans openly worry that the island is on a slippery slope back towards the Caribbean-style, foreign-owned tourism.”193 They wonder whether ecotourism is simply a “window dressing over the island’s mushrooming conventional tourism.”194 These are legitimate concerns and present challenges to planners and environmental officials who are working to keep environmental protection on an equal footing with economic development, in many places as well as Cuba.195 But in the case of Cuba, early efforts to invest in real models of ecotourism are encouraging and offer hope that the country will emerge as a leader, not a follower, in Caribbean ecotourism.
|
Whittle, et al, 03, (Daniel, “International Tourism and the Protection of Cuba's Coastal and Marine Environments, in Tulane Environmental Law Journal,” p. 29-30)//AB
|
the National Commission for Ecotourism publishes guidelines and criteria for ecotourism, Several companies now exclusively book and operate eco-tours. the Ministry of Planning has identified 50 areas with nature tourism potential throughout coastal and interior Cuba and emphasize ecotourism their popularity is on the rise. Cuba’s intention to develop and expand ecotourism is promising early efforts to invest in real models of ecotourism are encouraging and offer hope that the country will emerge as a leader in ecotourism.
|
Cuba has strong eco-tourism and keeps the environment safe with it
| 1,990 | 66 | 529 | 299 | 11 | 78 | 0.036789 | 0.26087 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,674 |
Exploitation thrives were poverty exists, and in that respect Cuba is no different than other destinations for sex tourists. ¶ Ivan Garcia, 43, a dissident Havana journalist who has written several articles on prostitution, said the underage prostitutes are typically poor, hopeless and desperate. “For these people, ‘future’ is a bad word,” he said.¶ Today, prostitution may well be the most profitable job in an island where the average monthly salary officially stands at less than $20 and a bottle of cooking oil costs $3.¶ But Garcia argues that there’s more to prostitution on the island than poverty — that most Cubans dream of meeting a foreigner who will take them away from the island’s grinding isolation.¶ “They see that this girl married some Italian and now she’s dressing nice, fixing up her mother’s house – it’s the illusion that you can get ahead if you prostitute yourself … the illusion of leaving the country, the illusion of a visa,” he said.¶ Garcia said he knows two 12-year-old girls currently working the streets and has heard of 11-year-olds. Havana lawyer Laritza Diversent said she knew of one nine-year-old girl who “was groped lasciviously” for cash.
|
Miami Herald 3/17 (“How Cuba became the newest hotbed for tourists craving sex with minors,” 17 March 2013, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/16/3289971/how-cuba-became-the-newest-hotbed.html, accessed 25 June 2013)
|
Exploitation thrives were poverty exists, and in that respect Cuba is no different than other destinations for sex tourists. underage prostitutes are typically poor, hopeless and desperate.
|
Link turn - prostitution only occurs where poverty exists—increased tourism improves the economy and decreases poverty
| 1,183 | 118 | 191 | 195 | 16 | 27 | 0.082051 | 0.138462 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,675 |
Culture and tourism have a mutually beneficial relationship which can strengthen the attractiveness and competitiveness of regions and countries.¶ Culture is increasingly an important element of the tourism product, which¶ also creates distinctiveness in a crowded global marketplace. At the same¶ time, tourism provides an important means of enhancing culture and creating income which can support and strengthen cultural heritage, cultural¶ production and creativity. Creating a strong relationship between tourism¶ and culture can therefore help destinations to become more attractive and competitive as locations to live, visit, work and invest in.
|
Arzeni, 09 - Director, OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development (Sergio, Organization For Economic Cooperation, “The Impact of Culture on Tourism,” 2009, http://www.em.gov.lv/images/modules/items/OECD_Tourism_Culture.pdf, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
|
Culture and tourism have a mutually beneficial relationship strengthen the attractiveness and competitiveness of regions and countries.¶ Culture creates distinctiveness in global marketplace tourism provides an important means of enhancing culture and creating income which can support and strengthen cultural heritage a strong relationship between tourism¶ and culture can help destinations become more attractive and competitive
|
Tourism and culture are mutually beneficial
| 652 | 43 | 430 | 91 | 6 | 56 | 0.065934 | 0.615385 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,676 |
The U.S. strategic goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power illustrated below. Fidel Castro should be inconsequential to the transition:
|
Arzeno 03 – Master of Business Administration, University of Miami (Mario A., “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change?” Master of Military Art and Science Strategy, page 49, 2003, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, Accessed 30 June 2013
|
U.S. goal for Cuba should be a peaceful transition to a post embargo environment by gradually lifting the embargo with the implementation of the full spectrum of the Diplomatic Instruments of Power
|
Gradual lifting key to a peaceful transition
| 288 | 44 | 197 | 44 | 7 | 32 | 0.159091 | 0.727273 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,677 |
Lifting the embargo, if that happens soon, could bring needed capital for the repair and preservation of the best of Havana’s architecture. Or it could destroy it. Coyula’s suggested to us the embargo be lifted gradually. Surprisingly, his opinion was shared by many Cubans we met, although they had suffered under communism and the embargo.
|
Louv 09 – American nonfiction author and journalist (Richard, “Cuba and the Invasion of the Big-Box Stores,” Citiwire, 08 January 2009, http://citiwire.net/columns/cuba-and-the-invasion-of-the-big-box-stores/, Accessed 30 June 2013
|
Lifting the embargo architecture could destroy it embargo be lifted gradually his opinion was shared by many Cubans we met,
|
Immediate lifting of embargo could destroy architecture – gradual lifting more stable
| 341 | 85 | 123 | 55 | 12 | 20 | 0.218182 | 0.363636 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,678 |
But ending the embargo is hardly a solution in and of itself. Though its repeal would allow Cubans and Americans to trade, invest and travel, we must recognize that Cuba is a closed and repressed society, one that Fidel Castro increasingly victimized throughout his dictatorial rule starting in 1959. The hesitancy with which ordinary Cubans have discussed their country's future in the last few weeks illustrates the constant fear Castro's police state has instilled.¶ As we have seen in other countries subjected to despotic rule, the wounds of tyranny are deep, and we cannot treat them brazenly. Also, Raúl Castro and his elite chums will not go to bed tonight communist revolutionaries and wake up Jeffersonian democrats tomorrow morning. Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese may be more likely economic role models. Change will be gradual.
|
Hamilton 08 – Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University (Lee, “1st Step Toward Change for Cuba: End Embargo,” The Center on Congress, 10 March 2008, http://www.centeroncongress.org/1st-step-toward-change-cuba-end-embargo, Accessed 29 June 2013
|
Cuba is a closed and repressed society Castro increasingly victimized throughout his dictatorial rule constant fear Castro's police state has instilled the wounds of tyranny are deep, and we cannot treat them brazenly Castro and his elite chums will not go to bed tonight communist revolutionaries and wake up Jeffersonian democrats tomorrow morning Change will be gradual
|
Gradual repeal of embargo key – Castro inflicted too much harm for an immediate repeal
| 838 | 86 | 372 | 135 | 15 | 57 | 0.111111 | 0.422222 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,679 |
The dumbest thing we could do today would be to enact legislation unilaterally lifting the embargo. Set aside questions about the embargo's efficacy. Like it or not, it is our only leverage, aside from our military, to affect the transition in Cuba. Why would we fritter away that leverage just as time prepares to do what the embargo could not -- bring about the end of the Castro regime? Fidel was never going to negotiate a loosening of repression in Cuba in exchange for a lifting of the travel ban and other trade restrictions. But those who succeed him will, and the Castro brothers will soon be gone. The question is: When that happens, what power will the United States have to encourage a democratic transition on the island? Instead of strengthening Raúl by lifting the embargo now, we should keep our powder dry and use it to strengthen democracy and influence his successor. The embargo has been in place for 47 years -- at this point, it would be foolish not to wait a little longer.
|
Theissen 9 - a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009 [Mark Theissen, Washington Post, 4/6/9, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501726.html]
|
dumbest thing we could do today would be to enact legislation unilaterally lifting the embargo it is our only leverage to affect the transition in Cuba Instead of strengthening Raúl by lifting the embargo now, we should keep our powder dry and use it to strengthen democracy it would be foolish not to wait a little longer
|
Lifting the embargo now hurts leverage and slows transition
| 996 | 59 | 322 | 177 | 9 | 57 | 0.050847 | 0.322034 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,680 |
When Russian daily Izvestia reported on 21 July that Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers had landed in Cuba, it set off a sprint in Washington as analysts and military leaders struggled to understand the situation.¶ At first, it appeared that Moscow had made a very serious gesture. Russia's perceived geopolitical maneuver in Cuba, many thought, was in response to the US' plans for an anti-missile shield defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.¶ By 24 July, after three days of media hype and speculation over Russia's true intentions, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Ilshat Baichurin, dismissed any intention for a strategic deployment in Cuba.¶ Two events quickly followed up this announcement. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin arrived in Cuba on 30 July for extended talks with Raul and Fidel Castro. A former KGB operative and known confidant of now-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Sechin was an active operative during the Cold War and enjoyed a deep relationship with the Castros.¶ Putin then followed up Sechin's visit with a 5 August announcement that Russia ought to "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries."¶ Observers agree a military presence in Cuba is not in Moscow's best interests; rather, closer economic ties would behoove both nations. Sechin's recent visit underlines the latter observation and coaxes Washington into a more open posture toward Cuba, an island nation the next US presidential administration would likely prefer not to lose again to the Russians.¶ The country is seemingly in a position to leverage its newfound attraction in two powerful nations. If the Castros can capitalize on Cuba's emerging position with both countries, it might find a way to pull the right geopolitical levers to win badly needed foreign direct investment (FDI).¶ "Cuba has more to gain and more to lose," Dan Erikson, senior associate for US policy and director of Caribbean programs with the Inter-American Dialogue told ISN Security Watch, commenting on if a closer relationship with the US than with Russia would be advantageous to Cuba.¶ "On the economic level, if travel and trade with the US were normalized, it would boost the Cuban economy," Erikson pointed out. "But then on the other hand, the Cuban government's number one preoccupation has been to maintain control over the island, and that is much easier within the context of the US embargo," he said, adding, "Cuba prefers to deal with countries that shares its ideology or at least respects it."¶ Moscow's interests¶ "The ideological rationale for close relations with Cuba ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, of course, and there has been little interest in Moscow in reviving the relationship until now," Derek Averre, a research fellow with the European Institute's Center for Russian and East European Studies, told ISN Security Watch.¶ "However, Moscow is keen to support the idea of a sovereign Cuba which does not fall wholly under a US sphere of interest," he added.¶ The rumors of Moscow's interests in using Cuba as a military forward operations location (FOL), some analysts argue, were most likely generated to signal Washington over Russia's displeasure for ongoing maneuvering in what used to be the latter's close sphere of influence, not to completely disrupt its own relationship with the US or Cuba.¶ Moscow intends to close the gap with Havana that occurred when it ceased financial aid to the island and further widened in 2001 when Russia closed a listening post there.¶ The electronic monitoring and surveillance facility near Havana at Torrens was closed in October 2001, precipitating the removal of an annual US$200 million payment Russia gave Cuba for use of the 28-square-mile area.¶ It was one of Russia's largest signal intelligence listening posts in the Western Hemisphere, but one Moscow could no longer afford. The unilateral and sudden closure of this base incensed Cuban leaders. They were neither consulted, nor were there any diplomatic overtures made to include Cuba in the decision process leading up to the closure of the base.¶ Since then, relations between Moscow and Havana have been chilly at best.¶ With the recent installment of Cuba's new leader, Raul Castro, Moscow has decided to repair relations with the high-level and overt visit recently made by Sechin: a man feared in Washington and welcomed in Havana.¶ His visit to Cuba began the process of business deals in tourism, pharmaceuticals, civilian aviation and oil, including most importantly the discussion of a refinery operated by Russian oil firm LUKoil.¶ If conversations over strategic interests were discussed in private, Cuba has publicly made its position well known. It is happy to receive FDI from Russia but will not engage in any military-military relations.¶ Military realities¶ Both Cuba and Russia know that any military-military relations between the two countries will provoke an immediate and negative response from Washington.¶ The US has geopolitical pulleys in place to pressure Russia, vis-à-vis relationships in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in Russia's neighborhood, and can pressure Cuba with a direct withdrawal from what has heretofore been the slow opening of a diplomatic aperture between the two historical enemies.¶ Any FOL for Russia in Cuba would mean an immediate departure for the latter from Washington's good graces and the declaration of the restart of a geopolitical battle between Moscow and Washington, thereby erasing any gains made by Putin during his presidency.¶ "Cuba has no strategic value to a post-Soviet Russia which is a regional great power but no longer a global superpower and, furthermore, it runs counter to Moscow's attempt to play a constructive role in international relations," Averre said, adding, "A revived military relationship is highly unlikely."¶ Russian military assets in Cuba would be limited to the projection of power, signaling Cuba's de facto decision to fall into step with its old ally.¶ Due to the proximity of the US naval base in Key West, Florida as well as other naval and US Coast Guard assets in the region, any hardware Moscow places on Cuban soil would most likely stay grounded or in port or face a direct confrontation with a far superior fighting force supported by various nearby ports. Russia would invite conflict half a world away from home – not an ideal situation for any military.¶ The reality of an aggressive Russian military presence in Cuba is one that is negative for both countries. It is simply one neither country sees as beneficial to its long term geopolitical goals in the region.¶ Cuba in the middle¶ When US Congress approved some US$42 million in aid destined to Cuba on 22 July, it was a concrete signal. Relations between the two countries are likely to improve over time despite the staunchly anti-Castro contingent that retains a powerful voting block in southern Florida.¶ Raul Castro is well aware of this future. And while he is willing to play hard ball with Washington, he knows the potential FDI upshot from the US could be beneficial to his people, Cuba's economy, and ultimately his regime.¶ Raul is also aware that Russia is keen to improve relations. His three-day visit with Sachin erased any doubt that Moscow is eager to invest in Cuba's energy and medical resources. Havana has long been interested in becoming a refining hub in the region, and is eager to complete the LUKoil deal to have the Russian energy firm refine Venezuelan heavy crude for domestic use and, perhaps, export to the US.¶ Cuba is in the middle with each hand on two heavy geopolitical levers. By applying the right amount of pressure, the country can certainly benefit from both relationships. Too much pressure on either side, and Cuba risks losing one or both connections. In the end, however, the island nation will stick to its historical roots – maintain sovereignty and some dignity no matter what the cost.
|
Logan 8 – investigative journalist and analyst on security, politics, and energy in Latin America, studied at Hampden-Sydney College, Monterey Institute of International Studies (Samuel Logan, ISN ETS Zurich, International Relations and Security Network, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 8/20/8 “Cuba's emerging leverage,” http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=90231, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
|
When Russian daily Izvestia reported on 21 July that Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers had landed in Cuba, it set off a sprint in Washington Moscow made a very serious gesture. Russia's perceived geopolitical maneuver in Cuba was in response to the US' plans . Sechin's recent visit underlines the latter observation and coaxes Washington into a more open posture toward Cuba, an island nation the next US presidential administration would prefer not to lose again to the Russians. the Cuban government's number one preoccupation has been to maintain control over the island, and that is much easier within the context of the US embargo Cuba prefers to deal with countries that shares its ideology or at least respects it." Moscow is keen to support the idea of a sovereign Cuba which does not fall wholly under a US sphere of interest The rumors of Moscow's interests in using Cuba as a military forward operations location were generated to signal Washington over Russia's displeasure for ongoing maneuvering in what used to be the latter's close sphere of influence Moscow intends to close the gap with Havana Sechin visit to Cuba began the process of business deals in tourism, pharmaceuticals, civilian aviation and oil, including Russian oil firm LUKoil. any military-military relations between the two countries will provoke an immediate and negative response from Washington Any FOL for Russia in Cuba would mean an immediate departure for the latter from Washington's good graces and the declaration of the restart of a geopolitical battle between Moscow and Washington Russia would invite conflict the island nation will stick to its historical roots
|
And American leverage is critical to avoid an expansion of Russian influence in Cuba
| 7,945 | 84 | 1,665 | 1,291 | 14 | 269 | 0.010844 | 0.208366 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,681 |
The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. However, a solid contractual basis should be developed for these plans.¶ The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out," Chirkov was quoted by the media. The issue was specifically discussed at the meeting with the leaders of all countries. President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang has recently held talks with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow and President Putin in Sochi. Cuban leader Raul Castro met with Putin in Moscow earlier this month. A little earlier the President of the Republic of Seychelles, James Michel made an unequivocal statement.¶ "We will give Russia the benefits in Cam Ranh, including the development of military cooperation," the President of Vietnam told the media. Cuba that has an American military base in Guantanamo Bay and is protesting against the deployment of new U.S. bases in Colombia, of course, wants to acquire an ally in Russia to be able to contain the United States. Seychelles in the Indian Ocean has always been in the zone of Soviet influence. In 1981, the Soviet Navy helped the government to prevent the military coup and before the collapse of the USSR the Soviets had a constant presence in the area. In June of 2012, at the opening of an Orthodox church in the capital city of Victoria, James Michel spoke of Russia's role in combating piracy and supported the Russian idea to build a pier in the port of Victoria, designed for the reception of the Navy warships of Russian Federation.¶ Following the statement by Vice-Admiral, Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry made it clear that they were talking about rest and replenishment of the crews after the campaign in the area and not military bases. It is clear, however, that Russian warships could do both without special arrangements, given the good attitudes of the leaders of these countries toward Russia. It can be assumed that the Russian Admiral unwittingly gave away far-reaching plans of the Russian leadership. That would be great, because from the time of Peter the Great, Russia had a strong fleet and army. In addition, it is worth mentioning Putin's statement at the G20 meeting in June. After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin made a sudden harsh statement to the press. ¶ ¶ "In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.¶ The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.¶ It is obvious that Russia will not stop simply at "resting" their sailors in the area. Now back to the statement of Chirkov. Americans have not officially resented it. For example, the Pentagon spokesman George Little said that Russia had the right to enter into military agreements and relationships with other countries, as does the United States, according to France Press Agency. The reason is simple: American analysts believe that Russia now cannot afford to create its own military bases.¶ The Americans talk about Russia's lack of influence, money and the actual fleet. Western media quoted an "independent expert on the defense" in Moscow Paul Fengelgauer. He said that Russia does not have the necessary naval resources to provide constant presence outside its territorial waters, as it has only 30 major warships that serve five fleets. Therefore, the possibility of placing an additional station does not mean the expansion of sea power in Russia. This is largely an objective assessment. But since the crisis in the West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not that great - about a quarter of the Soviet reserve. Another thing is that we should talk about the modernization of the fleet. There is much to maintain. On Thursday, Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with another 10-15 warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.¶ As for the influence, judging by the words of the Russian President, Russia is also actively growing in this regard, although work in this direction has only begun. As we can see, Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are involved. This is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the growing economic presence of Russia in the regions. For example, "Gazprom" is actively working on offshore Vietnam. In the Caribbean, it also participates in the construction of Meso-American pipeline and field development in Venezuela. An ammunition plant is under construction in Cuba.¶ However, one should start with a solid contractual basis. Take, for example, agreements on mutual defense that the U.S. has with the Philippines, Japan, Colombia, and Mexico. In the presence of such agreements military bases cannot be challenged as a military expansion. Russia has room to grow - of the 16 operating in the Soviet era military bases today there is only one left - Tartus in Syria, or two, if we consider the base in Sevastopol.
|
Lulko 12 – Pravda.Ru, studied at Universidade Lomonossov, Faculdade de Geografia, lives in Moscow (Lyuba Lulko, Pravda RU, “Russia to revive army bases in three oceans,” 1/8/12, http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
|
The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cuba George Bush has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba , our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles on the island. But since the crisis in the West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not great about a quarter of the Soviet reserve , Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with another 10-15 warships, including nuclear submarines. This is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the growing economic presence of Russia in the regions
|
And Russian nuclearization is happening right now. Russia is angry because it feels like the US is blocking it with Eastern European states. CP pushes Russia over the brink of war.
| 6,656 | 181 | 1,125 | 1,111 | 31 | 188 | 0.027903 | 0.169217 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,682 |
The nuances in Cuban public life since Raúl became president in his own right in February 2008 are evident as well in the enactment of economic-policy reforms that were rolled out immediately following his formal installation. Consider some examples. Previously, Cubans had not been able to stay at hotels or eat at restaurants designed for international tourists, even if they had the funds to pay, unless they were on official business; now they were given access to all these facilities, so long as they could pay. Cubans had also been prohibited from purchasing cell phones and subscribing to such services unless officially authorized to do so. They were not allowed to purchase computers or DVD players. Now they were able to purchase such products so long as they had the funds.¶ How the Cuban government adopted these changes is important. It could simply have announced a general deregulation of prohibitions regarding purchases of consumer durables, for example. Instead, the government made each of these announcements separately: one week you could stay at tourist hotels, the next week you could purchase a computer, the following week you could obtain cell-phone services, and so forth. The government even announced that some products would be deregulated for purchase in 2009 (air conditioners) or 2010 (toasters).¶ This method of deregulating implied a desire to win political support over time, not all at once. It communicated that the government retained the right to micromanage the economy, deregulating product by product and service by service. The government also signaled that it expected to remain in office for years to come, behaving in the same way. Finally, most Cubans knew that they could have been purchasing these same consumer durables all along, albeit only on the black market. Thus the policy of postponed deregulation implied an official tolerance of some current criminality (knowing that some Cubans would buy toasters illegally in 2008, instead of waiting for 2010), because the government valued its economic micromanagement more.¶ Whom the government sought to benefit was equally newsworthy. In its most revolutionary phase, during the 1960s, the Cuban government adopted strongly egalitarian policies. Many Cubans came to believe in egalitarian values and resented the widening of inequalities in the 1990s. Consider, then, Raúl’s reforms. Hotels and restaurants designed for international tourist markets are expensive; so, too, are computers and DVD players. When these economic changes were announced in 2008, the median monthly salary of Cubans amounted to about $17: that is, the average monthly salary was below the World Bank’s worldwide standard for poverty, which is one dollar per day. To be sure, Cubans had free access to education and healthcare and subsidized access to some other goods and services. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of Cubans could take advantage of these new economic policies, because the purchases of such consumer durables and the access to such tourist services had to be paid for in dollar-equivalent Cuban currency at dollar-equivalent international prices. (Cuba has two currencies; the peso convertible is a close equivalent to the dollar, whereas the peso is worth about $0.04.) Raúl’s government was appealing to the upper-middle-class professionals.
|
Dominguez 9 – Chairman, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies; Senior Adviser; Faculty Associate. Antonio Madero Professor for the Study of Mexico, Department of Government; Vice Provost for International Affairs, Harvard University. (Jorge I Dominguez, Harvard Magazine, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, “Hello from Havana: Nuanced but unmistakable stirrings of change in Cuba,” August 2009, http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/hello-havana, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
|
economic-policy reforms that were rolled out immediately following his formal installation How the Cuban government adopted these changes is important. It could simply have announced a general deregulation of prohibitions regarding purchases Instead, the government made each of these announcements separately This method of deregulating implied a desire to win political support over time, not all at once. It communicated that the government retained the right to micromanage the economy, deregulating product by product and service by service. The government also signaled that it expected to remain in office for years to come, behaving in the same way
|
And a rapid transition away from the communist economy is key to sustaining reform. Slow reform keeps the Castro regime in power, ensuring maintained political oppression.
| 3,343 | 172 | 656 | 520 | 26 | 98 | 0.05 | 0.188462 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,683 |
Elimination of the trade embargo immediately is not a feasible solution, as ¶ such a proposal would not attract sufficient political support. Furthermore, the ¶ Cuban political and legal infrastructure does not have the capability of adapting to ¶ such a radical change. Instead, I recommend incremental measures that would 1) ¶ reduce the restrictions on the financing of Cuba’s purchase of U.S. products by ¶ allowing payments to be made directly to U.S. banks; and 2) reduce and eventually ¶ eliminate the restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba by initially permitting ¶ travel for educational and cultural purposes and eventually permitting direct ¶ commercial flights from the U.S. to Cuba. The U.S. International Trade ¶ Commission’s analysis of the effects of government restrictions on export financing ¶ estimates that the U.S. share of Cuban agricultural, fish and forest product imports ¶ would increase between one-half and two-thirds, and that all U.S. agricultural ¶ sectors would benefit from the lifting of financing restrictions (U.S. International ¶ Trade Commission). The Commission also studied the effect on U.S. agricultural ¶ sales to Cuba if travel restrictions were eliminated, and concluded that significant ¶ increases in U.S. exports of processed foods, poultry, beef and pork and fish would ¶ result (U.S. International Trade Commission) This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of ¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but I will now focus on the ¶ costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S. needs ¶ to adopt a new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and ¶ waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach when trying to encourage change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created ¶ by the change in leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms ¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the state’s information ¶ monopoly. The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions ¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the ¶ risks. Benefits for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions ¶ with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from ¶ substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food exports ¶ to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions, ¶ and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S. ¶ government will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3) ¶ funds wasted on attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV ¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million annually, instead can be used for ¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S. ¶ Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and ¶ investigating illegal U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and ¶ redirected to a more practical use, such as investigating terrorist networks abroad; ¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s most important allies ¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform ¶ measures (Sweig). Offsetting these benefits are the costs of enforcement of ¶ increased trade activities and travel with Cuba as well as the reality that these ¶ measures will not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid ¶ transition to a democratic government.
|
Zimmerman, 10 [CHELSEA A. ZIMMERMAN, Barnard College, Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy, 2010, http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf]
|
Elimination of the embargo immediately is not a feasible solution the ¶ Cuban political and legal infrastructure does not have the capability of adapting to ¶ such a radical change I recommend incremental measures that would ¶ reduce the restrictions on the financing of Cuba’s purchase of U.S. products by ¶ allowing payments to be made directly to U.S. banks; and reduce and eventually ¶ eliminate the restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba by initially permitting ¶ travel The U.S. needs ¶ to adopt a new approach to Cuba The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions and promoting cooperation far outweigh the ¶ risks
|
Immediate end to the embargo collapses Cuban political and legal infrastructure
| 3,619 | 79 | 719 | 580 | 11 | 117 | 0.018966 | 0.201724 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,684 |
It is one of the ironies of totalitarian regimes that the road to bureaucratic success is not through efficiency or hard work but through loyalty. Perhaps Diaz Canel has learned this lesson in his short career. Without any popular support or base of power in the military, his future may be as precarious as those of his comrades fired from their jobs and now living in oblivion.¶ ***In the meantime, Raul Castro will still rule with an iron fist. Some Cuba observers expect that Raul will open up the economy and even provide some political changes. Not so soon. With Fidel alive, or even when he is dead, it would be difficult for Raul to reject his brother's legacy of political and economic centralization. His legitimacy is based on being Fidel's heir. Any major move to reject Fidel's "teachings" would create uncertainty among Cuba's ruling elites - party and military. It could also increase instability as some would advocate rapid change, while others cling to more orthodox policies. Cubans could see this as an opportunity for mobilization, demanding faster reforms.¶ For Raul Castro, the uncertainties of uncorking the genie's bottle of reform in Cuba are greater than keeping the lid on and moving cautiously. For the past 52 years, political considerations have always dictated economic policies. He had been the longest serving Minister of Defense (47 years). He presided over the worst period of political repression and economic centralization in Cuba and is responsible for numerous executions after he and his brother assumed power, and some while in Mexico and the Sierra Maestra before reaching power.¶ During his speech to Parliament, Raul Castro scoffed at any idea that the country would soon abandon socialism and embrace profound economic changes. "I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba," he emphasized. "I was elected to defend, maintain and continue to perfect socialism and not to destroy it."¶ General Castro faces significant challenges in his second term. A non-productive and highly dependent economy on Venezuela and other foreign sources, popular unhappiness, the need to maintain order and discipline among the population and the need to increase productivity. Raul is critically dependent on the military. Lacking the charisma of his brother, he still needs the support of key party leaders and technocrats within the government bureaucracy.¶ ***The critical challenge for Raul Castro will be to balance the need to improve the economy and satisfy the needs of the population with maintaining political control. Too rapid economic reforms may lead to an unraveling of political control, a fact feared by Raul, the military, and other allies keen on remaining in power. A partial solution may be to provide more consumer goods to the population, including food, but without any structural economic changes.¶ Similarly, any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in return for generous aid.¶ Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States and Cuba.¶ Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶ The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United States to change it policies.
|
Suchlicki 3/4 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. (Jaime Suchlicki, The Atlantic, “Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro,” 3/4/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
|
In the meantime, Raul Castro will still rule with an iron fist. With Fidel alive, or even when he is dead, it would be difficult for Raul to reject his brother's legacy of political and economic centralization. Any major move to reject Fidel's "teachings" would create uncertainty among Cuba's ruling elites - party and military. It could also increase instability as some would advocate rapid change, Too rapid economic reforms may lead to an unraveling of political control, a fact feared by Raul, the military, and other allies keen on remaining in power.
|
Rapid political and social transition key to toppling the Castro government
| 4,796 | 75 | 558 | 769 | 11 | 93 | 0.014304 | 0.120936 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,685 |
Cuba is an authoritarian state led by Raul Castro, who is president of the council of state and council of ministers, Communist Party (CP) first secretary, and commander in chief of security forces. The constitution recognizes the CP as the only legal party and “the superior leading force of society and of the state.” The October municipal elections were neither free nor fair. A CP candidacy commission preapproved all candidates for National Assembly elections anticipated for 2013. Security forces reported to a national leadership that included members of the military and conducted a range of oppressive actions and behaviors against civil rights activists and ordinary citizens alike.¶ The principal human rights abuses were: abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government; government threats, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly; and a record number of politically motivated and at times violent short-term detentions.¶ The following additional human rights abuses continued: unlawful use of force, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, selective prosecution, and denial of fair trial. Authorities interfered with privacy and engaged in pervasive monitoring of private communications. The government did not respect freedom of speech and the press; severely restricted Internet access and maintained a monopoly on media outlets; circumscribed academic freedoms; limited freedom of movement; and maintained significant restrictions on the ability of religious groups to meet and worship. The government refused to recognize independent human rights groups or permit them to function legally. In addition, the government continued to prevent workers from forming independent unions and abrogated workers’ rights.¶ Most human rights abuses were official acts committed at the direction of the government. Impunity for the perpetrators remained widespread.
|
Department of State 4/19 – US Department of State, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, “2012 Human Rights Reports: Cuba,” 4/19/13, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012/wha/204441.htm, accessed 7/1/13, IS)
|
The principal human rights abuses were: abridgement of the right of citizens to change the government; government threats, intimidation, mobs, harassment, and detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly; and a record number of politically motivated and at times violent short-term detentions. The following additional human rights abuses continued: unlawful use of force, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, selective prosecution, and denial of fair trial . The government did not respect freedom of speech and the press; The government refused to recognize independent human rights groups Most human rights abuses were official acts committed at the direction of the government.
|
And the Castro government is uniquely terrible for human rights. The counterplan ensures that rights abuses continue.
| 1,942 | 118 | 703 | 279 | 17 | 101 | 0.060932 | 0.362007 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,686 |
The ordeal of existence transcends the thermonuclear fever because the latter does not directly impact the day-to-day operations of the common people. The fear of crime, accidents, loss of job, and health care on the one hand; and the scourges of racism, sexism, and agism on the other hand have created a counterculture of denial and disbelief that has shattered the façade of civility. Civilization loses its significance when its social institutions have become counterproductive. It is the aspect of the mega-crisis that we are concerned about. The “ordeal of existence”, as I see it, has three relevant facets: Crisis of modernity, Contradictions of paradigms, Complexity of social phenomenon. Reinventing civility calls for an exposition of these elements without a vituperative intent. Each of these aspects has normative and structural dimension involving a host of theories. The politics, metaphors, and rhetoric, however, color the shape and substance of each analytical output. Therefore, a value-neutral assessment cannot be a politically correct statement on the human condition.
|
Mohan '93 [Professor at LSU (Brij, “Eclipse Of Freedom,” p. 3-4)]
|
thermonuclear fever does not impact the day-to-day operations of the common people. The fear of crime on one hand; and the scourges of racism, sexism, and agism on the other hand have shattered the façade of civility. Civilization loses its significance when its social institutions have become counterproductive.
|
Human rights violations outweigh nuclear war
| 1,092 | 44 | 313 | 165 | 6 | 48 | 0.036364 | 0.290909 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,687 |
But is it realistic to suppose that American citizens would risk not just their own lives but their families and their nation in using nuclear weapons to save Western Europe and other free societies from Soviet domination, especially if the United States’ allies are not willing to risk nuclear destruction themselves? According to one 1984 poll, 74 percent of Americans queried believe “the U.S. should not use nuclear weapons if the Russians invade Western Europe.” Nuclear Protectionists, however, would reply that further public debate might convince more Americans that deterrence cannot be had on the moral cheap. If the United States is determined to deter a Soviet attack on Europe, it must have a moral nuclear strategy that it is willing to implement. Without effective population defenses, such a strategy could require that the United States accept an unequal risk of nuclear destruction to ensure the survival of free society. In the extreme, this could mean that the United States must be willing to sacrifice itself for values higher than its own national survival. Thus, Nuclear Protectionism views both Just War morality and national “self-centered” as unworkable foundations for U.S. security policy.
|
Shue '89 [(Henry, Professor of Ethics and Public Life, Princeton University, “Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, pp. 134-5)]
|
If the U S is determined to deter a Soviet attack on Europe, it must have a moral nuclear strategy such a strategy could require that the U S accept risk of nuclear destruction to ensure the survival of free society. the U S must be willing to sacrifice itself for values higher than its own national survival.
|
A free society outweighs nuclear extinction
| 1,219 | 43 | 312 | 192 | 6 | 58 | 0.03125 | 0.302083 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,688 |
The White House announced this weekend that President Obama would soon lift restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba. A bipartisan group of 20 senators has gone further, introducing legislation to repeal the nearly half-century-old ban on travel to Cuba -- a first step toward lifting the U.S. embargo on the communist island. Before proceeding, lawmakers ought to consider the words of Ricardo Alarcón -- a top official in the Castro regime and longtime leader of Cuba's National Assembly of People's Power.¶
|
Theissen 9 - a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009 [Mark Theissen, Washington Post, 4/6/9, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501726.html]
|
The White House announced that Obama would lift restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba. A bipartisan group of 20 senators has gone further, introducing legislation to repeal the old ban on travel to Cuba -- a first step toward lifting the U.S. embargo on the island
|
Lifting the travel ban is the first step toward lifting the embargo
| 522 | 67 | 280 | 83 | 12 | 48 | 0.144578 | 0.578313 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,689 |
(Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill on Tuesday to allow U.S. citizens to travel freely to Cuba and predicted Congress would approve it as a step toward ending the five-decade-old U.S. embargo.¶ "I think there's sufficient votes in both the House (of Representatives) and the Senate to finally get it passed," Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan said at a news conference.¶ Dorgan, whose home state of North Dakota could benefit from increased agricultural sales to Cuba, introduced the bill along with fellow Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd and Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Mike Enzi. Seventeen other senators also are sponsoring the measure. A companion bill introduced in the House earlier this year has 121 co-sponsors.¶ Congressional opponents of any move to ease the embargo promised a tough fight to keep this measure from becoming law.¶ "This is the time to support pro-democracy activists in Cuba, not provide the Castro regime with a resource windfall," Senator Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican who was the first Cuban-American elected to the Senate, said in a statement.¶ President Barack Obama said during last year's presidential campaign he favored easing U.S. restrictions on family travel to Cuba and the sending of cash to family members.¶ But he stopped short of supporting the lifting of the trade embargo, which a growing number of U.S. lawmakers believe has failed to bring about democratic change in communist-led Cuba.¶ Vice President Joe Biden told reporters "no" when asked in Chile on Saturday whether the United States would lift the embargo, as many in Latin American favor.¶ Obama is expected to face pressure from regional leaders to improve U.S. relations with Cuba when he travels to Trinidad in mid-April for the Summit of the Americas meeting.
|
Palmer 9 [Doug Palmer, Reuters, 3/31/09, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/31/us-usa-cuba-travel-idUSN3142346320090331]
|
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill to allow U.S. citizens to travel freely to Cuba and predicted Congress would approve it as a step toward ending the embargo there's sufficient votes in both the House (of Representatives) and the Senate to finally get it passed A companion bill introduced in the House earlier this year has 121 co-sponsors.
|
Plan leads to end of embargo
| 1,819 | 28 | 363 | 290 | 6 | 61 | 0.02069 | 0.210345 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,690 |
Similarly, any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism. It may create uncertainty within the government, leading to frictions and factionalism. It would require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.¶ Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. At a time that anti-Americanism is strong in Latin America and the Middle East, Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States and that demand little from Cuba in return for generous aid.¶ Raul does not seem ready to provide meaningful and irreversible concessions for a U.S. - Cuba normalization. Like his brother in the past, public statements and speeches are politically motivated and directed at audiences in Cuba, the United States and Europe. Serious negotiations on important issues are not carried out in speeches from the plaza. They are usually carried out through the normal diplomatic avenues open to the Cubans in Havana, Washington and the United Nations or other countries, if they wish. These avenues have never been closed as evidenced by the migration accord and the anti-hijacking agreement between the United States and Cuba.¶ Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies.¶ The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking. These are not sufficient. There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions - in the area of human rights and political and economic openings as well as cooperation on anti-terrorism and drug interdiction - for the United States to change it policies.
|
Suchlicki 4/3 – Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He is the author of Cuba: From Columbus to Castro, Mexico: From Montezuma to NAFTA and Breve Historia de Cuba. (Jaime Suchlicki, The Atlantic, “Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American After Castro,” 4/3/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/why-cuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/, accessed 6/28/13, IS)
|
any serious overtures to the U.S. do not seem likely in the near future. It would mean the rejection of one of Fidel Castro's main legacies: anti-Americanism It would require the weakening of Cuba's anti-American alliance with radical regimes in Latin America and elsewhere. Raul is unwilling to renounce the support and close collaboration of countries like Venezuela, China, Iran and Russia in exchange for an uncertain relationship with the United States. Raul's policies are more likely to remain closer to regimes that are not particularly friendly to the United States Raul remains a loyal follower and cheerleader of Fidel's anti-American policies. The issue between Cuba and the U.S. is not about negotiations or talking . There has to be a willingness on the part of the Cuban leadership to offer real concessions
|
Raul Castro will say no to the US. He will reject any American intervention because Castro sees Cuban-US cooperation as a tradeoff of relations with other allied nations.
| 1,926 | 171 | 822 | 308 | 28 | 133 | 0.090909 | 0.431818 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,691 |
Fifty years ago today, rebel forces captured the city of Santa Clara in central Cuba, sending the island nation's dictator, Fulgencio Batista, into a New Year's Eve panic. He fled for exile in the Dominican Republic. A week later, a bearded 32-year-old lawyer named Fidel Castro marched triumphantly into Havana to claim his prize.¶ El Comandante is still there and still in charge, although earlier this year, he surrendered day-to-day control of the nation to his brother, Raul. Fidel Castro has survived 10 U.S. presidents starting with John F. Kennedy, who severed diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961, when it entered the Soviet Union's embrace.¶ The world has changed drastically in 50 years, but the United States and Cuba remain fierce political adversaries. Their populations, paradoxically, are intertwined, even as the U.S. economic embargo restricts the flow of people, money and products to and from the tropical island of 11 million people.¶ The embargo is an anachronistic vestige of Cold War politics that no longer serves much purpose. Castro's ill health, along with the beginning of President-elect Barack Obama's administration, offers a special opening to relax significantly — if not outright reverse — its damaging effects.¶ Relaxing or removing the embargo should be part of gradual diplomacy: As the Cuban government begins to restore political, economic and civil liberties to its people, the United States should loosen its economic sanctions.¶ Cuba is not the socialist paradise that Fidel Castro promised. He created a police state that represses free speech, free elections and the ability to accumulate personal wealth. It may be, as Castro boasts, that no Cuban lacks the basics of life. But most of them don't have much more than that.¶ Although a U.S. president can ease travel and cultural exchanges via executive order, it would take congressional action to end sanctions imposed by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act.¶ That's long been regarded as political suicide in Florida, a key electoral state. But a recent Florida International University poll found that a majority of the Cubans in Miami-Dade County support normalizing relations with Cuba and lifting the economic embargo.¶ About 35 percent of the Cubans in South Florida broke ranks with the Republican party to vote for Obama, a Democrat. His support was especially strong among younger Cuban-American voters, many of whom don't share the animosities of their fathers and mothers.¶ Lifting the embargo would be in the best interests of the United States in several ways:¶ — Economic. Although Cuba is just a blip on the global economic radar, it is a mere 90 miles from Florida and offers new markets to U.S. farmers and businesses.¶ — Strategic. Lifting the embargo would re-establish U.S. credibility throughout the Caribbean, Central and South America. It would deflect Cuba's public flirtations with Russia, China and Venezuela.¶ — Brainpower. Cubans are poor but well-educated and literate at levels above other developing Latin American countries. It offers a trove of doctors and teachers, as well as a population hungry for access to the democratizing effects of the Internet, cell phones and personal technology.¶ — Humanitarian. Two generations of families in both countries have been tormented and divided. Families should be reunited, and Americans should be allowed to enjoy the ecological and cultural splendor of the island.¶ Cuba poses no direct military threat; the memories of the Bay of Pigs attack in 1961 and the missile crisis of 1962 are just that: memories.¶ The blockade serves only the interests of Cuba's leaders. They can — and do — blame the many failings of a 50-year communist regime on what they call El Bloqueo. In many respects, the Castro revolution has survived not despite U.S. opposition, but because of it.¶ The best ambassadors for democracy in Cuba are American tourists, American businesses and American cultural representatives. The Cuban people may have been isolated from the world for 50 years, but they are smart and pragmatic. The United States should reach out to them, not only in their interest, but also in our own.
|
Dion 12 – Worked for The Associated Press, the Kansas City Star and the Providence Journal as a writer, book reviewer and columnist , Marc Dion, Creators Syndicate, “U.S. trade embargo with Cuba needs to change,” 2012, http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/u-s-trade-embargo-with-cuba-needs-to-change.html, accessed 6/30/13, IS)
|
As the Cuban government begins to restore political, economic and civil liberties to its people, the United States should loosen its economic sanctions. Although a U.S. president can ease travel and cultural exchanges via executive order, it would take congressional action to end sanctions imposed by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. That's long been regarded as political suicide in Florida, a key electoral state
|
Even if the CP claims to get rid of the Helms-Burton Act, it’s not true. Obama doesn’t have the jurisdiction to void the Helms-Burton Act, means Obama can only pass part of the plan. Proves that the permutation solves best.
| 4,159 | 224 | 409 | 667 | 40 | 63 | 0.05997 | 0.094453 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,692 |
They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island.¶ This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publicly accusing them of being CIA frontmen. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶ Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently travelled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials - a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president.¶ "These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration.
|
Haven, 6/22 – Writer for the Associated Press and Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, Cuba. Previous Chief of Bureau/Spain and Portugal at The Associated Press, Chief of Bureau/Pakistan and Afghanistan at The Associated Press, Supervisory Editor of AP. Cornell University Graduate. (Paul, the Associates Press, “Cuba, U.S. take steps toward rapprochement,” 6/22/13, http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Cuba+take+steps+toward+rapprochement/8563980/story.html, accessed 6/25/13 IS)
|
Cuba and the U.S. have taken some steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues Castro making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat travelled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward
|
Plan not unique to relations – relations are thawing now.
| 2,148 | 58 | 632 | 348 | 10 | 108 | 0.028736 | 0.310345 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,693 |
¶ RELATIONS BETWEEN the United States and Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full economic embargo in 1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change the status quo. Yet while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The communist government of the ruling Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled to return home.¶ These changes, and the beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunity to acknowledge Cuba’s gestures and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the Castros, the Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ The Cuban-American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting greater contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of Florida voters. Because of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as Romney — has more maneuvering room politically.¶
|
Boston Globe 2/09 (Boston Globe Editorial, “Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too” 2/09/13, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html, 7/1/13,)
|
, the Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ . Supporting greater contact animates a younger generation voters. Because of this trend, Obama has more maneuvering room politically
|
Plan is popular with the public – Obama can use this for greater political maneuvering
| 1,353 | 87 | 216 | 213 | 15 | 34 | 0.070423 | 0.159624 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,694 |
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) today sent a letter signed by 59 Members of Congress to President Barack Obama, asking the Administration to expand its current policy for travel to Cuba. The letter encourages President Obama to allow all categories of permissible travel to Cuba, including people-to-people travel, to be carried out under a general license.¶ “There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” said Congressman Farr. “By including all forms of permissible travel under a general license, more Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and advance human rights.”¶ In 2009, President Obama announced Reaching Out to the Cuban People, a set of policy changes that fully restored the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba and send them unlimited remittances. This has resulted in the reunification of thousands of families and has provided the capital for Cubans to take advantage of economic reforms in Cuba and start their own businesses.¶ In 2011, President Obama took another important step by reauthorizing purposeful travel for all Americans, fostering meaningful people-to-people interaction between American and Cuban citizens. But these trips require a specific license granted to specialized travel service providers. Unfortunately, the licensing process has reportedly been expensive, slow, cumbersome, and arbitrary, causing delays and – in some cases cancellations- of trips that enable Americans to exercise their right to purposeful travel to Cuba.¶ Earlier this year, Cuba removed the restrictions on most Cubans’ foreign travel, including travel to the United States, a move that the United States and many in the international community had been pushing for.¶ The letter calls upon the President to use his executive authority to included people-to-people travel under a general license. ¶ “A pragmatic policy of citizen diplomacy can be a powerful catalyst for democratic development in Cuba,” said Farr. “This change is the next step in supporting a 21st century policy of engagement in US-Cuba relations.”
|
Farr 5/1 – U.S. Representative for California's 20th congressional district (Sam, “Members of Congress ask White House to expand Cuba travel policy,” http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/component/content/article/37-2013-press-releases/965-members-of-congress-ask-white-house-to-expand-cuba-travel-policy, Accessed 27 June 2013
|
Farr sent a letter signed by 59 Members of Congress to Obama to expand its policy for travel to Cuba encourage Obama allow all categories of permissible travel to Cuba There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and advance human rights In 2011 Obama foster meaningful people-to-people interaction But the licensing process has reportedly been expensive, slow, cumbersome, and arbitrary, causing delays and cancellations This is the next step in a 21st century policy of engagement in US-Cuba relations
|
Democrats want to allow all travel to Cuba – people-to-people diplomacy key to relations
| 2,166 | 88 | 635 | 328 | 14 | 98 | 0.042683 | 0.29878 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,695 |
The Obama administration should make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba by ending pre-travel approval, 59 House Democrats wrote Tuesday in a letter to the president.¶ This month marks the fourth anniversary of Obama's decision to lift all restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island; two years later, Obama allowed all Americans to participate in so-called “people-to-people” visits, educational exchanges carried out by licensed tour operators. Lawmakers now want individuals and groups to be able to travel under a general license: instead of having to get approval before their trip, visitors to Cuba would be able to travel without hassle but may have to produce supporting documentation upon their return that their visit met the letter of the law.¶ “There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), who spearheaded the letter, said in a statement. “By including all forms of permissible travel under a general license, more Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and advance human rights.”¶ The letter says that Cuba's decision in January to rescind restrictions on Cubans' travel to the United States gives the administration a “predicate for doing more.”¶ “Exercising your executive authority to allow all current categories of permissible travel, including people-to-people, to be carried out under the general license is the next logical step,” the letter says. “This action would speed the processes you have already unleashed: increasing opportunities for engagement and reconciliation, while also helping Cubans create more jobs and opportunities to further expand their independence.”
|
Pecquet 4/30 - Foreign affairs reporter/blogger for The Hill (Julian, “House Dems: Time to simplify travel to Cuba,” The Hill, 30 April 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/297013-lawmakers-time-to-simplify-travel-to-cuba, Accessed 27 June 2013
|
Obama should make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba by ending pre-travel approval 59 House Democrats wrote in a letter to the president Lawmakers want individuals and groups to be able to travel under a general license visitors to Cuba would be able to travel without hassle more Americans can engage in people-to-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and advance human rights helping Cubans create more jobs and opportunities to further expand their independence
|
Democrats push for less travel restrictions– promote democracy and human rights
| 1,738 | 79 | 485 | 263 | 11 | 77 | 0.041825 | 0.292776 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,696 |
Looks like Jay-Z and Beyoncé can go ahead and get…that…dirt off their shoulders.¶ After all, the GOP lawmakers who are attacking Jay-Z have no leg to stand on when they (GOPers) are the ones who helped to vote an end funding on the enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba.
|
Blase 4/11 – the foundress of the largest Hispanic Republican group in the nation that began in Arizona (Dee Dee Garcia, “GOP Lawmakers have no leg to stand on slamming JayZ and Beyonce after ending fund on enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba,” Mexican-American Times, 11 April 2013, http://tucsoncitizen.com/hispanic-politico/2013/04/11/gop-lawmakers-have-no-leg-to-stand-on-slamming-jayz-and-beyonce-after-ending-fund-on-enforcement-of-the-travel-ban-in-cuba/, Accessed 28 June 2013
|
Jay-Z and Beyoncé can go get that dirt off their shoulders the GOP lawmakers helped to vote an end funding on the enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba
|
Republicans support the plan – they want to end Cuba’s travel ban
| 270 | 65 | 151 | 50 | 12 | 29 | 0.24 | 0.58 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,697 |
Business associations are raising the lobbying stakes on legislation that would remove the American travel ban and boost U.S. farm sales to Cuba.¶ In an unusual move, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a letter to House Agriculture Committee members warned it could score House floor votes on the bill that the panel is marking up Wednesday. Such letters typically aren’t sent until a day before a floor vote. ¶ “It sends a signal how seriously we are taking the bill,” said Patrick Kilbride, the Chamber’s director of the Americas office. “This just has been considered by the Chamber as fundamental to its advocacy message of free enterprise.”¶ The Chamber has been a longtime advocate of opening up trade with Cuba, believing it will boost U.S. business and spread democracy to the communist regime. It argues the trade embargo has been a failure despite its best intentions.¶ “Instead of undermining the regime, it has helped the regime. We think opening up trade with Cuba will help spread democracy there,” Kilbride said. ¶ In the letter from Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s chief lobbyist, the group says it will consider scoring votes on the measure if it reaches the floor.¶ Since 2007, the Chamber has only sent two other letters to lawmakers on Cuba-related legislation. Neither included language indicating the Chamber planned to score votes.¶ Chamber officials said there simply have not been votes in the full House or Senate on bills dealing with Cuba for several years that rose to the level of a priority vote for the trade association.¶ The U.S. trade embargo has been on Cuba for 50 years, and lawmakers opposed to the policy have had little success in opening it up.
|
Bogardus 10 – staff writer at the Hill (Kevin, “Chamber Raises Stakes in Cuba Travel Ban,” The Hill, 29 June 2010, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/106313-chamber-raises-stakes-in-cubas-embargo-battle, Accessed 28 June 2013
|
Business associations raising the lobbying stakes on legislation that would remove the American travel ban to Cuba Chamber of Commerce warned it could score House floor votes on the bill “It sends a signal how seriously we are taking the bill,” This considered by the Chamber as fundamental to its advocacy message of free enterprise Chamber longtime advocate of opening up trade with Cuba it will boost U.S. business and spread democracy to the communist regime embargo has been a failure despite its best intentions opening up with Cuba will help spread democracy there
|
COC supports plan – opens trade and spreads democracy
| 1,679 | 53 | 571 | 284 | 9 | 94 | 0.03169 | 0.330986 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,698 |
WASHINGTON — After months of sparring with President Obama in the heat of the campaign season, Chamber of Commerce executives came to the White House this week with a far more conciliatory tone, offering up suggestions to avert large budget cuts without having to raise taxes. Enlarge This Image Charles Dharapak/Associated Press Thomas J. Donohue after introducing President Obama at a Chamber of Commerce event in 2011. But Mr. Obama’s top advisers were not budging. There would be no deal on the federal budget deficit, they told chamber executives, without higher taxes, participants said. If there were doubts about the White House’s resolve, Mr. Obama met the chamber’s chief executive afterward for an unscheduled Oval Office chat about the showdown. For the United States Chamber of Commerce, long the leading business voice in Washington, this month’s negotiations over the nation’s debt will be a key test of whether it can retain its influence and swagger in the capital even after a string of bruising political losses. Many business leaders are looking to the chamber as a bulwark against the White House’s push for higher taxes, but it is unclear if the century-old association has the clout it once did. Other business groups seen as more open to tax increases have become players in the negotiations, exposing rifts in the private sector. The Chamber of Commerce, in the biggest voter mobilization effort in its history, spent tens of millions of dollars in support of pro-business candidates, usually Republicans, in the Nov. 6 elections. But the results were disastrous: out of 48 House and Senate candidates that it spent money to try to either elect or defeat, the outcome went the chamber’s way only seven times, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group that tracks political spending. If the chamber was an 800-pound gorilla before the elections, “now they’re a wounded 500-pound gorilla,” said Cyrus Mehri, a Washington lawyer for U.S. Chamber Watch, a union-backed group that is critical of the chamber’s political practices. “But they’re still a major force to be reckoned with,” he added. As the White House looks to work out a deal with Congress to avert hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic budget cuts at the end of the year, Mr. Obama and his top economic advisers have been meeting through the week with business leaders to push their plan for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Obama met Wednesday with chief executives from Goldman Sachs, Coca-Cola, Yahoo and other prominent firms, and he met a day earlier with small-business representatives. The president’s advisers also met with officials from the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a centrist group that has become influential in pushing for a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. It is led by Erskine B. Bowles, a former Clinton administration official, and Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming. When Mr. Obama met two weeks ago with a dozen corporate leaders but did not invite the Chamber of Commerce, it was widely seen as a snub of the group over its political attacks during the presidential campaign. But the chamber got its turn Monday. Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, and other senior economic advisers listened as chamber executives, including Thomas J. Donohue, the group’s president, and Bruce Josten, its top lobbyist, laid out their ideas for raising significant revenue without necessarily raising taxes by expanding energy development. “They wrote it down, but where that goes, I don’t know,” Mr. Josten said in an interview. But Mr. Josten said that the White House advisers stressed that any debt deal would have to include increased taxes at the highest brackets and that if an agreement could not be reached, they were willing to risk the automatic spending cuts — the so-called fiscal cliff option — at the end of the year. “They reiterated that they want the higher rates, and they’ll go over the cliff if they need to,” Mr. Josten said. After the meeting, White House officials led Mr. Donohue to the Oval Office for a brief session with Mr. Obama, which chamber officials described as “positive and constructive.” White House officials would not discuss the president’s meeting with Mr. Donohue or the earlier meeting with chamber executives. An Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that “the White House does not want to go over the fiscal cliff, but at the same time, we’re not going to accept a bad deal.” The chamber has already circulated letters in Congress, targeted crucial lawmakers, taken out ads and prepared position papers and Internet videos intended to discourage any debt deal that it believes would deter private investment and free enterprise through higher taxes. While the chamber and its business members often proved the dominant voice on such issues in the past, the competing agendas of different business sectors have in some ways diluted the chamber’s overall influence. The Fix the Debt campaign, for example, adopted a much higher profile than the chamber in recent weeks with its own flurry of political ads, Washington meetings and news conferences to push its case for a balanced solution that would probably include tax increases. “There are going to be a lot of distinct voices, and we’re not simply going to throw in with any single coalition,” said Matthew Shay, president of the National Retail Federation, a trade group that is pushing for a quick end to the debt negotiations. At the same time, Mr. Shay said “there’s no daylight between any members of the business community” on the overall need to reach an agreement without imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic cuts. “I expect the chamber will continue to play an enormously influential role in the debate,” he said. Chamber officials acknowledged that they were deeply disappointed by the poor showing of the Congressional candidates they backed, particularly in the Senate. But they scoffed at the notion, discussed in Washington political and media circles since the election, that the chamber’s political influence was waning and that the group might become marginalized in the debt negotiations as a result. “You really think we aren’t going to have any influence?” asked Mr. Josten, the group’s lobbyist. “If that’s the case, why would the White House want to meet with us?” he said. “My suspicion is that they know we’re going to have some influence on this. I don’t think there’s any member of Congress out there that doubts that.”
|
Lichtblau 12 (Eric, New York Times, 11-29 “Chamber Competes to Be Heard in the Fiscal Debate” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/business/chamber-competes-to-be-heard-in-fiscal-debate.html?_r=0, ken)
|
Chamber of Commerce executives came to the White House conciliatory tone For the Chamber of Commerce, the leading business voice in Washington negotiations a key test of influence they’re a major force to be reckoned with officials led Donohue to a session with Mr. Obama, which chamber officials described as “positive and constructive.” The chamber has circulated letters in Congress, targeted crucial lawmakers, taken out ads and prepared position papers and Internet videos I expect the chamber will continue to play an enormously influential role in the debate Chamber officials scoffed at the notion that the chamber’s political influence was waning why would the White House want to meet with us?” we have influence I don’t think there’s any member of Congress that doubts that.”
|
Key to agenda – independently shields the link
| 6,599 | 46 | 791 | 1,085 | 8 | 125 | 0.007373 | 0.115207 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,699 |
Differing types of relationships between economic interests and the parties are not distributed randomly throughout the entire economy. The most partisan sectors are greatly concentrated in a relatively small share of broad industry classifications. Expansive parts of the U.S. economy employing millions of people remain undefined by partisan cleavages, including most retail trades and nearly all service sectors outside of finance, insurance, and real estate. To return to the question of the party polarization of economic interests in the U.S., only around half the sectors that are consistently active in campaign contributions exhibit any partisan preference. Of those that do, these alignments evidently have much to do with the parties’ diverging issue positions on energy issues and other labor and regulatory controversies.
|
Gimpel et al 12 – professor of political science at University of Maryland (James G., Frances E. Lee [professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland-College Park], Michael Parrott [doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland], “Business Interests and the Party Coalitions: Industry Sector Contributions to U.S. Congressional Campaigns,” NCAPSA American Politics Workshop at American University, 7 January 2012, page 28, http://home.gwu.edu/~dwh/gimpel_lee_parrott_workshop.pdf, Accessed 28 June 2013
|
relationships between economic interests and the parties are not distributed randomly throughout the entire economy most partisan sectors are greatly concentrated in a relatively small share of broad industry classifications parts of the U.S. economy employing millions of people remain undefined by partisan cleavages sectors consistently active in campaign contributions
|
Key to agenda – contribute to campaigns
| 834 | 39 | 372 | 122 | 7 | 50 | 0.057377 | 0.409836 |
Cuba Travel Ban Aff - MNDI 2013 CT.html5
|
Michigan (MNDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.