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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,800 |
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The 50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain on US-Latin American relations. Although the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American engagement. At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the Americas. At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American and Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An end to the US policy of isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an important first step.
|
Inter-American Dialogue, center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs. The Dialogue brings together public and private leaders from across the Americas to address hemispheric problems and opportunities, 4/2012, “Remaking the Relationship: the United States and Latin America,” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf //BW
|
Cuba poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. long been a strain on US-Latin American relations Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its constraints on normalized relations with Cuba one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American engagement. An end to the US policy of isolating Cuba would be an important first step.
|
Cuba’s especially key - plan is a symbolic action contrary to 50 years of sanctions and perceived imperialism
| 1,107 | 109 | 514 | 172 | 18 | 81 | 0.104651 | 0.47093 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,801 |
Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions. Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums addressing shared interests. Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent years it has become far more active on global issues of concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and provide security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political, environmental, and security issues. Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could become increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge on non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists. In that context, south-south connections are crucial. Brazil could play a pivotal role. Many countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges. This may position them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special role to play. Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún in 2010. The United States is handicapped by its inability to devise a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the presumption of shared interests on a critical policy challenge.
|
Inter-American Dialogue, center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs. The Dialogue brings together public and private leaders from across the Americas to address hemispheric problems and opportunities, 4/2012, “Remaking the Relationship: the United States and Latin America,” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf //BW
|
Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions. Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums addressing shared interests The United States and Brazil have have cooperated when their interests converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and provide security for Haiti to raise the profile of emerging economies in various international financial agencies Brazil and other Latin American nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political, environmental, and security issues As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts US and Latin American interests converge the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists south-south connections are crucial. Brazil could play a pivotal role. Many countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges. position them as a voice in international debates importance of the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special role Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún The United States should support coordination on the presumption of shared interests on a critical policy challenge
|
Specifically relations are key to cooperation on climate policy and prevent transfer of nuclear material to terrorists
| 2,633 | 118 | 1,800 | 398 | 17 | 270 | 0.042714 | 0.678392 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,802 |
In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the nation's attention has focused more on the environmental impact of offshore drilling. n18 In recent years, the Cuban government has begun to explore the possibility of tapping into oil reserves in the Straits of Florida, the ninety-mile stretch of water separating Florida from Cuba. n19 The Straits of Florida is significant not only as the thin separation between longtime political foes but also as the major conduit for the beginning of the Gulf Stream. n20 Any oil spill picked up by the Gulf Stream could travel through the Straits of Florida and up the Atlantic Coast, contaminating the entire coastline of the Southeast Atlantic. n21 The gravity of the danger presented by an oil spill in the Straits of Florida combined with the stale relationship between the United States and Cuba has caused several U.S. officials to express concern about the prospect of Cuba engaging in offshore drilling, especially because Cuba lacks the advanced technology necessary to safely explore deepwater oil reserves. n22 In February 2012, the Scarabeo 9, a semi-submersible oil rig, began drilling the first of several exploratory wells in the Straits of Florida, only sixty miles from the Florida Keys. n23
|
C. Adam Lanier, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010; J.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013, Winter 2013, “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571 //BW
|
, the nation's attention has focused more on the environmental impact of offshore drilling the Cuban government has begun to explore the possibility of tapping into oil reserves in the Straits of Florida significant as the major conduit for the beginning of the Gulf Stream. n Any oil spill picked up could travel through the Straits of Florida and up the Atlantic Coast, contaminating the entire coastline of the Southeast Atlantic. The gravity of the danger presented by an oil spill in the Straits of Florida combined with the stale relationship has caused several U.S. officials to express concern Cuba lacks the advanced technology necessary to safely explore deepwater oil reserve the Scarabeo 9, a semi-submersible oil rig, began drilling the first of several exploratory wells in the Straits of Florida, only sixty miles from the Florida Keys
|
Cuban oil drilling coming now – other countries will inevitably attempt to access Cuban oil
| 1,250 | 91 | 850 | 203 | 15 | 138 | 0.073892 | 0.679803 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,803 |
[*588] Despite the advanced technologies the Coast Guard has at its disposal, a number of issues remain. n109 As previously mentioned, because there are no bilateral agreements between the United States and Cuba concerning oil spill responses, if an oil spill were to occur, the responsibility of combatting it would initially fall to Cuba and the oil rig operators. n110 Some analysts have claimed that Cuba is ill-equipped to respond to a major disaster. n111 Similarly, because of the embargo, if a blowout like the one in the Deepwater Horizon spill occurred, the Cuban government and the oil rig operators would have to wait a week or more for the necessary equipment to arrive before they could even begin repairs. n112 As journalist William Booth wrote in a March 2012 article in the Washington Post, "if a blowout occurred, Repsol would have to await delivery of a capping stack, which would have to travel from Scotland to Cuba and then out to the rig." n113 Other estimates are even more startling: "In the event of a spill, were assistance from U.S. firms permitted, relief would take 24-48 hours to arrive on scene. Barring their participation, however, it would take 30-50 days for help to arrive from Brazil, Northern Europe, Africa, or S.E. Asia." n114 In an effort to address these concerns, the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") and the Bureau of Industry and Security [*589] ("BIS") recently issued to the U.S. Coast Guard a general license that, in the event of an oil spill, would permit entrance into the Cuban EEZ "with all necessary equipment that would be required to aggressively re-spond to a spill in Cuban waters." n115 This license also allows the Coast Guard to call upon and extend the coverage of its license to both public and private sector resources for assistance in combatting a spill. n116 While this action gives the Coast Guard and other organizations significantly more freedom to respond to an oil spill off the coast of Florida, it does not go far enough. Because all public and private sector organizations must operate under the command of the Coast Guard's incident commander to be covered by its license, there remains little flexibility for organizations not di-rectly called upon by the Coast Guard to assist with response efforts. n117 Thus, the effectiveness of this licensing scheme is predicated on the assumption that the Coast Guard response team will know what caused the spill and what equipment is necessary to combat it. n118 The scheme also assumes that the private sector resources called upon by the Coast Guard will be prepared to respond to the situation. But as BP Commission co-chairman William K. Reilly and energy expert Megan Reilly Cayten indicated in a Washington Post opinion piece, "the private sector needs considerable time to ready an effective response." n119 Additionally, given the nature of private [*590] enterprise, calling upon resources at the last minute may prevent the private sector from providing effective assistance, or any assistance at all. n120
|
C. Adam Lanier, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010; J.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013, Winter 2013, “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571 //BW
|
there are no bilateral agreements the responsibility would initially fall to Cuba and the oil rig operators Cuba is ill-equipped to respond to a major disaster operators would have to wait a week or more for the necessary equipment to arrive Repsol would have to await delivery of a capping stack, which would have to travel from Scotland to Cuba and then out to the rig." Barring their participation, however, it would take 30-50 days for help to arrive from Brazil, Northern Europe, Africa, or S.E. Asia it does not go far enough. Because all public and private sector organizations must operate under the command of the Coast Guard's incident commander to be covered by its license, there remains little flexibility for organizations not di-rectly called upon by the Coast Guard to assist with response efforts this licensing scheme is predicated on the assumption that the Coast Guard response team will know what caused the spill and what equipment is necessary to combat i The scheme also assumes that the private sector resources called upon by the Coast Guard will be prepared to respond to the situatio the private sector needs considerable time to ready an effective response. calling upon resources at the last minute may prevent the private sector from providing effective assistance, or any assistance at
|
Status quo response plans fail – unilateral and too slow
| 3,046 | 56 | 1,317 | 504 | 10 | 218 | 0.019841 | 0.43254 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,804 |
Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry. Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective.
|
Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S. Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security, 3/2012, “Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill: Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 15,” http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515 //BW
|
Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast poses a threat to the United States seventy miles off the Florida coast and 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had similar features, A spill could ravage the tourism industry. Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout the surface currents in the area move at a brisk three to four knots Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies ineffective
|
Blowout likely – lack of tech access and experience in drilling
| 1,496 | 63 | 857 | 250 | 11 | 143 | 0.044 | 0.572 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,805 |
Man-made environmental disasters, such as oil and natural gas leaks, can likewise be of shared concern to the Cuban and U.S. governments. The Gulf of Mexico is a rich source of oil and gas and will remain so for decades to come. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there exist nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico off the U.S. coastline. Cuba also has plans for new oil and gas platforms off its northern coast.4 Given the near- and long-term implications of gas, oil, and chemical dispersants on the Gulf of Mexico’s biodiversity, it is imperative for the economic and ecological wellbeing of both Cuba and the United States that exploration is pursued with enhanced safeguards to avoid the mistakes of past disasters, such as the dramatic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. While Cuba and the United States are signatories to several international protocols for cooperation on containment of oil spills, there is scant cooperation between them on this front—although there were at least some low-level meetings between the countries after the Deepwater Horizon blowout.5 Given the potential of currents in the Gulf of Mexico to disperse spills from off the coast of one country to the waters and shores of the other, there were ongoing concerns about the possible reach of the disaster. Fortunately, relative to its potential, the Deepwater Horizon spill remained mostly contained. However, with increased drilling in the area, including deep wells, more than luck will be needed to avert future disasters. Even if oil and gas leaks or spills are restricted to Cuban or U.S. waters, the negative environmental impacts can be important regionally. The two nations’ shared marine ecosystem is the foundation for the mid Atlantic and Gulf Stream fisheries. Many important commercial and sport fish species breed and feed in Cuban waters. So destruction of Cuban mangroves and coral reefs will impact stocks of species such as snapper, grouper, and tuna, along with myriad other animals, plants, and microbes that spend different parts of their life cycles in the territorial waters of each country.6 Given that urgent environmental problems can arise rapidly and harm the economic and ecological health of the United States and Cuba, it is imperative that there should be a mechanism for rapid, joint response to these shared threats.
|
Brian M. Boom, director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, 08.14.2012, “Biodiversity without Borders Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through Environmental Research,” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders //BW
|
Man-made environmental disasters, such as oil and natural gas leaks, can likewise be of shared concern to the Cuban and U.S. governments. Cuba also has plans for new oil and gas platforms off its northern Given the near- and long-term implications of gas, oil, and chemical dispersants on the Gulf of Mexico’s biodiversity it is imperative that exploration is pursued with enhanced safeguards to avoid the mistakes of past disasters, such as Deepwater Horizon there is scant cooperation between them on this front Given the potential of currents in the Gulf of Mexico to disperse spills from off the coast of one country to the waters and shores of the other, there were ongoing concerns about the possible reach of the disaster with increased drilling in the area, including deep wells, more than luck will be needed to avert future disasters Even if oil and gas leaks or spills are restricted to Cuban or U.S. waters, the negative environmental impacts can be important regionally The two nations’ shared marine ecosystem is the foundation for the mid Atlantic and Gulf Stream fisheries. Many important commercial and sport fish species breed and feed in Cuban waters. So destruction of Cuban mangroves and coral reefs will impact stocks of specie along with myriad other animals, plants, and microbe that urgent environmental problems can arise rapidly and harm the economic and ecological health of the United States and Cuba, it is imperative that there should be a mechanism for rapid, joint response to these shared threats.
|
That causes massive oil spills that devastate costal biodiversity
| 2,406 | 65 | 1,531 | 389 | 9 | 252 | 0.023136 | 0.647815 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,806 |
These ecosystems are threatened increasingly by habitat modification, the impact of tourism, overexploitation of marine fishes and other commercial seafood resources, the ramifications of climate change and rising sea levels, and pollution from land-based sources (e.g., unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices) and ocean-based sources (e.g., cruise ship waste). Increasing tourism especially threatens coral reefs. Despite some positive measures taken by the cruise industry in recent years, more cruise ships in the region still mean greater potential stresses to the marine and coastal environments. In addition to these and other shared ecosystems, many marine and terrestrial species are shared by Cuba and the United States. Examples include migratory, invasive, endangered, and disease vector species. Migratory Species: Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species that breed in the United States, such as black-and-white warblers. Many insects also migrate between the United States and Cuba, including the monarch butterfly. Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, such as the hawksbill, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats. Mammals, such as the Florida manatee, also swim between U.S. and Cuban waters. Invasive Species: Cuba and the United States share many of these problem organisms, which are among the most significant threats to native species and to ecological and economic wellbeing. For example, Hydrilla verticillata, an aggressive waterweed native to the Old World, displaces native aquatic plants and seriously disrupts recreational uses of lakes and rivers in Cuba and the United States.8 Another example is the red lionfish, which is native to the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans but was released into the Atlantic Ocean from a home aquarium in Florida when Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992. Today, this venomous fish has spread along the U.S. Atlantic Coast as far north as New York and into the Caribbean, including Cuban waters, voraciously eating native fish and creating major disruptions to coral reef ecosystems.9 Endangered Species: Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally Threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Because only a small fraction of the world’s plants and animals have been assessed by the IUCN criteria, the actual number of threatened species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger. Even with what is known already, there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.
|
Brian M. Boom, director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire Curator of Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, 08.14.2012, “Biodiversity without Borders Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through Environmental Research,” http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders //BW
|
ecosystems are threatened increasingly by habitat modification tourism overexploitation climate change and pollution unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices cruise ship waste many marine and terrestrial species are shared by Cuba and the United States. Examples include migratory, invasive, endangered, and disease vector species. : Thousands of species of animals migrate between the two nations. Cuba provides key wintering habitats for 284 bird species . Many insects also migrate between the United States and Cuba Fishes, such as the Atlantic bluefin tuna, swim through both Cuban and U.S. waters, while turtles, share Cuban and U.S. marine habitats Invasive Species: Cuba and the United States share many of these problem organism Hydrilla verticillata, an aggressive waterweed native to the Old World, displaces native aquatic plants and seriously disrupts recreational uses of lakes and rivers in Cuba and the United States the red lionfish this venomous fish has spread along the U.S. Atlantic Coast as far north as New York and into the Caribbean, including Cuban waters, voraciously eating native fish and creating major disruptions to coral reef ecosystem Endangered Species: Cuba and the United States share forty-nine animal species and eight plant species that are categorized as Globally Threatened the actual number of threatened species that are shared by Cuba and the United States is certainly much larger there exists a strong imperative for the two countries to cooperate on monitoring and protecting the threatened species for which they are joint stewards, including the West Indian walnut, the American crocodile, and the West Indian whistling duck.
|
Key ecosystems on the brink now – US-Cuba waters is a key biodiversity hotspot
| 2,928 | 78 | 1,684 | 443 | 14 | 254 | 0.031603 | 0.573363 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,807 |
Constraints on Collaboration The experiences of US and Cuban scientists engaged in previous and ongoing collaborations identify a number of constraints, and an enhanced US-Cuban scientific exchange is dependent on the capacity to overcome, reduce, or mitigate these impediments. Constraints include: (1) travel and permit restrictions; (2) mail and shipping limitations; (3) difficult Internet access; (4) limited infrastructure (such as research vessels and instrumentation); (5) restrictions on US training of Cuban students; (6) restrictions on technology transfer; (7) limits on the use of global positioning systems (GPS) to locate study sites; and (8) limited available and allowable funding.
|
Gary Machlis et al., Professor, Department of Forest Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. Thomas A. Frankovich is Research Scientist, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA. Pedro M. Alcolado is Senior Researcher, Instituto de Oceanología, Havana, Cuba. Erik García-Machado is Vice Director, Center for Marine Research, University of Havana, Miramar, Cuba. Aida Caridad Hernández-Zanuy is Coordinator of the CYTED Ibero-American Network BIODIVMAR, Instituto de Oceanología, Havana, Cuba. Robert E. Hueter is Associate Vice President for Research, Directorate of Marine Biology and Conservation, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Nancy Knowlton is Sant Chair for Marine Science, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Erick Perera is Head, Marine Aquaculture Department, Center for Marine Research, University of Havana, Miramar, Cuba. John W. Tunnell Jr. is Associate Director and Endowed Chair of Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, and Regents Professor, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 6/2012, “US-Cuba Scientific Collaboration: Emerging Issues and Opportunities In Marine and Related Environmental Sciences,” Oceangraphy Vol. 25 #2 //BW
|
The experiences of US and Cuban scientists engaged in previous and ongoing collaborations identify a number of constraints enhanced US-Cuban scientific exchange is dependent on the capacity to reduce these impediments. travel and permit restrictions mail and shipping limitations restrictions on US training of Cuban students restrictions on technology transfer limits on the use of GPS
|
Oil shocks kill the economy
| 698 | 27 | 386 | 98 | 5 | 56 | 0.05102 | 0.571429 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,808 |
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody. Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century. Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba, and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples. Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields, ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new era of scientific cooperation.
|
Sergio Jorge Pastrana, Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Michael T. and Clegg, Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, 17 October 2008, “U.S.-Cuban Scientific Relations,“ Science: Vol. 322 no. 5900 //BW
|
It's time to establish a new scientific relationship to address shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework for expanded cooperation. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation, vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities he U.S. scientific community could benefit from high-quality science Cuba typically sits in the path of hurricanes Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike there was less loss of life than that which occurred when it later struck Texas Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on tropical diseases, such as dengue fever This viral disease is epidemic one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity value system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from science into the social, economic, and political arenas. tific contacts could build important cultural and social links Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being
|
US-Cuban cooperation solves disease, biotech and natural disaster response – also spillsover to other types of relations
| 4,448 | 120 | 1,829 | 668 | 17 | 265 | 0.025449 | 0.396707 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,809 |
Emerging Issues and Opportunities Critical issues and opportunities for future US-Cuba collaboration in marine and related environmental sciences include: (1) ecosystem approaches to collaborative science, (2) studies of environmental change, (3) conserving biodiversity at large scales, (4) food security through sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, and (5) capacity building for collaborative science. Ecosystem studies Ecosystem studies hold considerable potential for US-Cuba marine and environmental science. Research can be organized and conducted at the ecosystem scale; key ecosystems are mangrove, seagrass, coral reef, and pelagic systems, among others. Emerging ecosystem research can build upon existing specieslevel collaborations within and across ecosystems, including current collaborative research related to sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals. Collaborative research is also needed to identify critical ecosystem services and estimate values (both economic and nonmonetized) to particular key economic sectors such as fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism. In addition to advancing scientific understanding of shared and similar US-Cuban marine ecosystems, the results can be usefully applied to Marine Protected Area (MPA) management important to both countries. Studies of environmental change Studies of environmental change hold significant opportunity for US-Cuban collaborative science. Understanding the complexity of climate change/variability on marine and coastal ecosystems via sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean warming, and altered storm patterns can benefit from comparative studies and research using shared monitoring and modeling expertise. Detection of invasive species such as red lionfish (Pterois volitans) and research on their impact on marine ecosystems are of special importance. Collaborative development of early warning monitoring systems would allow both countries to act quickly and decisively to manage harmful invasive species and mitigate ecological and economic consequences of invasions. In addition, shared data and methodological techniques for identifying eutrophication and waterquality trends (such as hypersalinity and contaminant levels) can be of significant benefit for US and Cuban resource managers and policy. Conserving Biodiversity at large spatial scales The US and Cuba share biodiversity at large spatial scales; an example is the movement of large pelagic fishes between US and Cuban waters through the Straits of Florida. Collaborative US-Cuba biodiversity research (particularly for marine, coastal, and watershed systems) should identify shared biodiversity at multiple levels from genetic through higher guilds, and use multiple diversity measures including but not limited to species richness. New technologies and techniques allow for increasingly finedgrained spatial analysis, and the results of collaborative US-Cuba research can directly inform MPA management in both countries. Food security: sustainable Fisheries and aquaculture The link among food security, sustainable fisheries, and aquaculture is a shared opportunity for collaborative US-Cuba marine science. Such research has potential to inform and improve marine food production systems and resource management in both countries. Joint assessments of shared fish stocks can improve sustainable fisheries management (e.g., Hueter et al., 2011). The development and promotion of integrated coastal zone management can directly benefit from the results of US-Cuba research, as can ecosystem approaches to conserving shared and similar fisheries. Research to develop environmentally friendly approaches to aquaculture (particularly for shared cultured species), as well as new techniques and technologies, can benefit both countries. Social science research can (even in the context of dramatically different political systems) identify mechanisms and best practices for environmental stewardship, including conflict resolution, inventory and monitoring systems, coastal zone management, and more.
|
Gary Machlis et al., Professor, Department of Forest Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. Thomas A. Frankovich is Research Scientist, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA. Pedro M. Alcolado is Senior Researcher, Instituto de Oceanología, Havana, Cuba. Erik García-Machado is Vice Director, Center for Marine Research, University of Havana, Miramar, Cuba. Aida Caridad Hernández-Zanuy is Coordinator of the CYTED Ibero-American Network BIODIVMAR, Instituto de Oceanología, Havana, Cuba. Robert E. Hueter is Associate Vice President for Research, Directorate of Marine Biology and Conservation, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Nancy Knowlton is Sant Chair for Marine Science, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Erick Perera is Head, Marine Aquaculture Department, Center for Marine Research, University of Havana, Miramar, Cuba. John W. Tunnell Jr. is Associate Director and Endowed Chair of Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, and Regents Professor, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 6/2012, “US-Cuba Scientific Collaboration: Emerging Issues and Opportunities In Marine and Related Environmental Sciences,” Oceangraphy Vol. 25 #2 //BW
|
ecosystem approaches to collaborative science, (2) studies of environmental change, (3) conserving biodiversity at large scales, (4) food security through sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, and (5) capacity building for collaborative science. Ecosystem studies hold considerable potential Research can be organized and conducted at the ecosystem scale; key ecosystems are mangrove, seagrass, coral reef, and pelagic systems Collaborative research is also needed to identify critical ecosystem services and estimate values to particular key economic sectors such as fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism the results can be usefully applied to Marine Protected Area (MPA) management important to both countries. Studies of environmental change hold significant opportunity for US-Cuban collaborative science. Understanding the complexity of climate change/variability on marine and coastal ecosystems via sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean warming, and altered storm patterns can benefit from comparative studies and research using shared monitoring and modeling expertise Collaborative development of early warning monitoring systems would allow both countries to act quickly and decisively to manage harmful invasive species and mitigate ecological and economic consequences of invasions The US and Cuba share biodiversity at large spatial scales; an example is the movement of large pelagic fishes between US and Cuban waters through the Straits of Florida. Collaborative US-Cuba biodiversity research New technologies and techniques allow for increasingly finedgrained spatial analysis, and the results of collaborative US-Cuba research can directly inform MPA management in both countries. The link among food security, sustainable fisheries, and aquaculture is a shared opportunity for collaborative US-Cuba marine science. Such research has potential to inform and improve marine resource management Joint assessments of shared fish stocks can improve sustainable fisheries managemen
|
Specifically its key to maintain biodiversity and climate change
| 4,048 | 64 | 1,998 | 540 | 9 | 270 | 0.016667 | 0.5 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,810 |
An additional and important capacity is related to the need for scientific exchange during crises, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Creating workable arrangements for real-time collaboration before joint crises arise (from oil spills to hurricanes) can greatly improve the functioning of critical research and delivery of science-based assessments to decision makers.
|
Gary Machlis et al., Professor, Department of Forest Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. Thomas A. Frankovich is Research Scientist, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA. Pedro M. Alcolado is Senior Researcher, Instituto de Oceanología, Havana, Cuba. Erik García-Machado is Vice Director, Center for Marine Research, University of Havana, Miramar, Cuba. Aida Caridad Hernández-Zanuy is Coordinator of the CYTED Ibero-American Network BIODIVMAR, Instituto de Oceanología, Havana, Cuba. Robert E. Hueter is Associate Vice President for Research, Directorate of Marine Biology and Conservation, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Nancy Knowlton is Sant Chair for Marine Science, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Erick Perera is Head, Marine Aquaculture Department, Center for Marine Research, University of Havana, Miramar, Cuba. John W. Tunnell Jr. is Associate Director and Endowed Chair of Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, and Regents Professor, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 6/2012, “US-Cuba Scientific Collaboration: Emerging Issues and Opportunities In Marine and Related Environmental Sciences,” Oceangraphy Vol. 25 #2 //BW
|
additional and important capacity is related to the need for scientific exchange during crises, such as the oil spill workable arrangements for real-time collaboration before joint crises arise (from oil spills to hurricanes) can greatly improve the functioning of critical research and delivery of science-based assessments to decision makers.
|
And scientific collaboration solve oil spill response – data exchange key to good policy responses
| 380 | 98 | 344 | 54 | 15 | 49 | 0.277778 | 0.907407 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,811 |
They are next-door neighbors, sharing all the amenities and challenges of the neighborhood—oceans teeming with life, the risk of tropical diseases, a changing climate that may be giving rise to bigger and more frequent hurricanes. And yet, because the neighbors are barely on speaking terms, they cannot share the opportunities and the responsibilities that come with solving the challenges. Today, however, scientists in both Cuba and the United States are exploring whether a thaw in relations between the two nations could allow for a range of new or expanded joint research projects that could bring benefits to both nations and others in the Caribbean Basin. Recent visits and consultations facilitated by AAAS and the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba (Academy of Sciences of Cuba) underscored that both sides see potential for substantive science collaboration. “The recent visits showed that the Cuban mindset is really ready to reach out,” said Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and a former president of AAAS, who returned in March from his third visit to the nation. “The scientists would have no trouble working together... The Cubans are understandably proud of their science, and they see us very positively. I would anticipate if we could normalize relations and do science as a starting point, then really good things could happen.” “The possibility of open scientific exchange between researchers in Cuba and the U.S. can only bring increased benefits for both scientific communities, and of course, for the people in their respective countries,” said Sergio Jorge Pastrana, foreign secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. “The kind of scientific development that took place in Cuba for the last half-century has produced original results that have been internationally recognized as being in the frontiers of knowledge in several fields. Science, along with technology and innovation, has produced outcomes that are important for societies not only in Cuba and the United States, but in neighboring countries of the Caribbean, and for sustainable development everywhere.” Vaughan C. Turekian, director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy, said that researchers from both nations have focused on science, not on the politics that have divided the two nations for a half-century. “Especially on the environmental side, there is not an issue that we discussed that doesn’t have direct implications and impact both on Cuba and the United States,” said Turekian, who also serves as AAAS’s chief international officer. “Given the proximity, when you’re talking about atmospheric or marine science, if it travels to Cuba, it travels to the Southeast coast of United States, too. If it spawns off the coast of Cuba, it is caught or affected by currents that go into the United States.” The AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy organized an initial three-day visit to Cuba in November 2009, with Agre, then the AAAS president, and seven other U.S. science leaders. AAAS helped to facilitate a second visit last December, with 18 independent scientists traveling to the island for informal talks centered on marine science, atmospheric science, environmental change, conserving biodiversity at large scales, sustainable fisheries, and capacity-building. Agre, who heads the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, returned to Cuba in March to speak at Biotechnology Havana 2012, an international congress that focused on medical applications of biotech. Since the early 1960s, just after the Cuban revolution, the two neighbors have been locked in a Caribbean cold war; though they are just 90 miles apart, the relationship has been characterized by economic and cultural barriers, sometimes sharp political conflict, and broad dimensions of mistrust. Advocates see science diplomacy as a way to do important research with value for all sides, and to build constructive engagement in a non-political environment. History dating back well over 100 years suggests that Cuba and the United States are “natural scientific partners,” Pastrana said in an April email interview. “As both science communities were establishing their own scientific institutions during the 19th century, many scientists and scholars from both countries started links of exchange, discussion and cooperation,” he said. “The relations of Cuban scientific research centers, as well as of many scientists and scholars, with the Smithsonian Institution, universities like Harvard, Columbia or Yale, go way back and, in many ways, have been important for both sides for a very long time. “Some of those links have never disappeared, and have continued over particularly difficult moments, overcoming political hurdles, to produce important publications, collections, and scientific results that are of benefit to the peoples in both countries.” The recent engagements have allowed AAAS and other scientists to further develop their ties with Pastrana and Fidel Ángel Castro Díaz-Balart—Fidel Castro’s oldest son—a nuclear physicist and leader in his nation’s science policy community. The December trip also included a special side event: Agre and Alan Robock, a Rutgers atmospheric scientist, were invited to a three-hour meeting with former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Castro’s wife, and his sons Fidel and Antonio, an orthopedic surgeon. “The meeting with Fidel was really interesting,” Agre said. “It was about the past. He spoke about his family, growing up... He described the Revolution, the Bay of Pigs, the missile crisis. It was a much different perspective than I expected. “I mostly listened. If I meet him again—and I don’t know if I will—he asked me to bring him my research papers. But the fact that he and I sat in the same room—he didn’t see me as an enemy. I’m a scientist, born the same year as his son.” But the central focus of the Cuban meetings was science, and informal scientist-to-scientist consultations and discussions. They focused on common interests and on the prospects—and challenges—of working together. “There’s a definite pride in the work they do there, and the research they do,” said Joanne Carney, director of the AAAS Office of Government Relations. “When we talk about collaboration, they really want honest collaboration and partnership, as opposed to funding or resources. They definitely are interested in pursuing areas of mutual interest.” Malaria and the Caribbean Both Turekian and Agre cited malaria as one area where the U.S. scientists might learn much from Cuba. And that might tie in to an interest shared by both countries in working to support health and human development in the impoverished Caribbean nation of Haiti. “Malaria is endemic in Haiti,” Agre said. “It was endemic in Cuba, but one of the objectives of the revolution was to eliminate malaria—and they achieved that. How did they do it? That’s something I would like to pursue.... In Cuba, vaccinations and prevention are a high priority.” Unchecked malaria or other diseases in Haiti can be a destabilizing factor even for neighboring nations, Turekian said. “It leads to a lot of people moving back and forth, and it reduces Haiti’s internal strength and stability,” he explained. “So Cuba and the United States could have mutual interests in working on this.” So too with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), added Agre. Because of hurricanes, earthquakes, crime and other human disasters, PTSD is widespread in Haiti. “The Cubans have an interest in that, and we have an interest in that,” he said. “We could work on it together.” Atmospheric Science Atmospheric research is another area where Cuba and the United States share tangible common interests. Hurricanes and other storms go over Cuba en route to the United States. Clues gained from atmospheric conditions over the Caribbean can give insights—and perhaps early warning—about tornados in Oklahoma and Arkansas, or storms in Chicago and New York. It is an area of particular interest for Turekian, an atmospheric geochemist. “There is no doubt that real atmospheric science involving Cuba—measurements, understanding of atmospheric conditions—is important not only for better understanding of transport of African dust, but also for getting a handle on how atmospheric conditions and dynamics affect the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern United States,” he said. “Given that tornadoes are driven by really complicated dynamics that involve large amounts of warm air coming up through the Gulf and interacting with cold fronts, any data we can gain can mean lives saved.... But you can’t hope to understand things like storms as they affect the Southeast Coast of the United States without having better joint cooperation between scientists in the U.S. and Cuba, and without research, instruments, and calibration to measure dynamics that affect us both.” Still, both Turekian and Robock suggested that official mistrust and the trade embargo combine to make such collaboration on climate research difficult, if not impossible. Robock, in an interview, outlined efforts by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder to install global positioning system devices in the central Cuban city of Camaguey. The GPS devices receive signals from satellites; microwave signals are affected by transmission through the atmosphere, and depending on the density of the atmosphere, that allows for insights on weather and climate change. There are nearly 100 such devices in the Caribbean, Robock explained, but Cuba, though one of the largest land masses in the Caribbean, hosts none of them. “Basic weather data are already shared by all the countries of the world,” he said. “But taking specific measurements there with the GPS would be useful to Cubans and to the larger community. It gives you better information about the state of the atmosphere—temperature, humidity, soil moisture. That’s what you need to start a weather forecast model.” But the Cuban military is wary of the GPS devices, and the nation has not approved the installation. At the same time, the U.S. embargo of Cuba makes it impossible for Cuban scientists to come to the United States for even a week-long course in how to use a computer climate model. “Scientists from both countries want to work together,” Robock said. “We’ll do the best we can... but there are significant limitations.” “From the scientific standpoint,” Turekian added, “this is about the ability to go to a place to make measurements so that we can better understand hurricanes and other conditions that affect the Caribbean and the southeastern United States. To do that, we need relationships and protocols so that Americans and the Cubans together can benefit from measurements in Cuba.” Marine Science Coral reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from human activity—over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says marine scientist Nancy Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and they’re in better health. Knowlton is the Sant Chair for Marine Science at Smithsonian Institution and senior scientist emeritus at Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. She’s worked in fields of marine biodiversity and ecology; coral reefs are her specialty. Save for a cruise that stopped in Guantanamo, she’d never been to Cuba, but on her visit in December, she was deeply impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the marine science already underway there. “There are amazing habitats, much less impacted by people than most places in Caribbean, in terms of over-fishing and that sort of thing,” she said. “And there’s a large community of marine biologists there, many with shared interest in biodiversity and conservation.” For Knowlton, the Cuban reefs are like “a window in time,” allowing researchers a view of what healthy reefs looked like in an era past. “They give you a baseline as to what a healthy fish community should look like,” she explained. And that gives greater insight into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced. “So there are a lot of things to learn from Cuban marine scientists,” she said. “And there are a lot of reasons for Cubans to come here, or for Cubans to come and work at the Smithsonian. There’s a huge potential for interchange because there are so many shared interests.” Small Steps, Significant Potential Those shared interests appear to extend across many fields. Carney, whose parents were born in Cuba, met in December with Cuban counterparts who study and help shape government science and technology policy. “From my own perspective in talking to their scientists, I was struck by some of the similarities between our communities,” Carney said. The Cubans “face challenges in policy decisions regarding research priorities, and how to balance between basic research and applied research. They provide universal health care, and so life science research is a bit more targeted, a bit more applied. But looking forward, you want to balance the applied portion with the basic research. “It’s interesting that we’re both faced with similar issues, even though our systems are different.” Scientists from both countries are aware, of course, of the considerable obstacles that stand in the way of full collaboration. Visas and the U.S. embargo are obvious problems. But where scientists in a wealthy nation like the United States take digital and Internet resources for granted, bandwidth in Cuba can be so limited that it’s difficult or impossible to exchange data. Given those constraints, the immediate prospects for full, constructive engagement between science communities are slender at best. And yet Robock, Carney, and others said the visits have made clear that working with Cuban scientists is easier than it might appear. “Any academic can go to Cuba and spend money without restriction,” Robock explained. “You need a license from the U.S. Treasury Department to spend money, but as a researcher, you are subject to the existing general license. So many more Americans could go to Cuba and start doing science with them—but they don’t know that they can.” One of the ideas to emerge from the discussions, Carney said, was a Web resource page that would provide such practical information to both scientific communities. These may be small steps, but they have a significant value in helping to build the foundation for collaboration among researchers in Cuba and the United States. Though the formal relationship between the two nations has long been strained, the scientists are betting on better times ahead, even if they don’t know exactly when. “While it’s been the same for 50 years, it will change—political relationships always do,” said Turekian. “Whenever that relationship changes, you want to be in place where you have the groundwork laid and relationships built so you can take advantage of areas where science cooperation can actually contribute to both countries.” In the meantime, efforts will continue, building on the collegiality that visitors to the island have shared with their hosts. “Everyone who was there was a pretty good science diplomat,” said Knowlton. “There was no uneasiness—there was a lot of curiosity on both sides to meet people and find out what people are doing.... Everyone was going out of their way to be gracious. That’s important—you have to be willing to listen as well as to talk. It was lovely. I’d really like to go back.” Added Agre: “Non-governmental science and AAAS have a tremendously important role to play. More than ever, science is a way for us to break barriers between adversaries. It’s a constructive way for the world to move ahead.” Pastrana, too, sounded an ambitious note for the future. “Any hurdle that comes in the way of international exchange in science is limiting its capacity to be of help for increasing the resilience of this world’s environments,” he said. “Only the knowledge, technologies, and products that come from scientific developments could provide the tools for societies to be able to continue human development in harmony with the only planet that sustains them so far, which has been abused for the last half-century far beyond its capacity to cope with such abuse. “Let us be in favor of scientists and their open communication everywhere. In this way, they would be able to contribute to the sustainability of human societies on planet Earth.”
|
AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1 May 2012, “Oceans, Weather, Health—U.S. Researchers Explore Potential Collaboration with Cuban Colleagues,” http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0501cuba.shtml //BW
|
scientists in both Cuba and the United States are exploring whether a thaw in relations between the two nations could allow for a range of new or expanded joint research projects both sides see potential for substantive science collaboration. the Cuban mindset is really ready to reach out The kind of scientific development that took place in Cuba for the last half-century has produced original results that have been internationally recognized as being in the frontiers of knowledge in several fields. Given the proximity, when you’re talking about atmospheric or marine science, if it travels to Cuba, it travels to the Southeast coast of United States, too. If it spawns off the coast of Cuba, it is caught or affected by currents that go into the United States.” Advocates see science diplomacy as a way to do important research with value for all sides, and to build constructive engagement in a non-political environment Some of those links have never disappeared, and have continued over particularly difficult moments, overcoming political hurdles, to produce important publications, collections, and scientific results that are of benefit to the peoples in both countries. malaria as one area where the U.S. scientists might learn much from Cuba. A both countries in working to support health and human development in the impoverished Caribbean nation of Haiti. Unchecked malaria or other diseases in Haiti can be a destabilizing factor even for neighboring nations, leads to a lot of people moving back and forth, and it reduces Haiti’s internal strength and stability,” he explained Because of hurricanes, earthquakes, crime and other human disasters, PTSD is widespread in Haiti. “The Cubans have an interest in that, and we have an interest in that,” he said. “We could work on it together.” Hurricanes and other storms go over Cuba en route to the United States. Clues gained from atmospheric conditions over the Caribbean can give insights—and perhaps early warning There is no doubt that real atmospheric science involving Cuba—measurements, understanding of atmospheric conditions—is important for getting a handle on how atmospheric conditions and dynamics affect the Gulf of Mexico and the southeastern United States ornadoes are driven by really complicated dynamics that involve large amounts of warm air coming up through the Gulf and interacting with cold fronts, any data we can gain can mean lives saved.. better joint cooperation between scientists in the U.S. and Cuba, and without research, instruments, and calibration to measure dynamics that affect us both.” Coral reefs in much of the Caribbean have sustained significant damage from human activity—over-fishing, climate change, oil spills, and other pollution. But off of Cuba’s coasts, says marine scientist Nancy Knowlton, the reefs have been less exposed to development, and they’re in better health. her visit in December, she was deeply impressed with opportunities for research in the Cuban reefs and by the marine science already underway there. And there’s a large community of marine biologists there, many with shared interest in biodiversity and conservation.” They give you a baseline as to what a healthy fish community should look like,” she explained. And that gives greater insight into other Caribbean reefs where damage is more pronounced. Those shared interests appear to extend across many fields From my own perspective in talking to their scientists, I was struck by some of the similarities between our communities face challenges in policy decisions regarding research priorities, and how to balance between basic research and applied research governmental science and AAAS have a tremendously important role to play. More than ever, science is a way for us to break barriers between adversaries. It’s a constructive way for the world to move ahead.” Only the knowledge, technologies, and products that come from scientific developments could provide the tools for societies to be able to continue human development in harmony with the only planet that sustains them so far, which has been abused for the last half-century far beyond its capacity to cope with such abuse. Let us be in favor of scientists and their open communication everywhere. In this way, they would be able to contribute to the sustainability of human societies on planet Earth
|
Cuba says yes - Science based cooperation with Cuba is beneficial to both sides
| 16,431 | 79 | 4,357 | 2,611 | 14 | 689 | 0.005362 | 0.263884 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,812 |
Many experts who have studied this topic agree that the United States should accept that Cuba is going to develop its oil resources no matter how fiercely the Cuban American lobby opposes it. n138 [*593] The history of U.S.-Cuban relations certainly suggests that on matters of interest to Cuba, Washington's opinion carries little weight. n139 Accepting that Cuba is going to develop its oil resources, rather than trying to prevent it, will allow the United States to search for a more collaborative solution with Cuba. Once a framework of collaboration and cooperation is established, both countries will reap benefits that have long been overshadowed by hostility. n140 On March 5, 2012, Representative Jeff Flake introduced the Western Hemisphere Energy Security Act of 2012, n141 which is targeted at fostering a cooperative relationship that would facilitate the prevention of an oil spill in the Straits of Florida and ensure that both countries are better prepared to respond if such an incident does occur. n142 The Act would categorically "permit United States companies to participate in the exploration for and the extraction of hydrocarbon resources from any portion of a foreign maritime exclusive economic zone that is contiguous to the exclusive economic zone of the United States." n143 The Act would also permit U.S. individuals to "engage in any transaction necessary" for the exploration and extraction of oil resources in a qualified zone and would allow those resources to be imported to the United States. n144 It would further permit individuals to "export without license authority all equipment necessary for the exploration for or extraction of hydrocarbon resources, or oil spill prevention and clean-up activities ... ." n145 The Western Hemisphere Energy Security Act sets the kind of accommodating and supportive tone n146 that has been unnecessarily [*594] absent from U.S.-Cuban relations. n147 The following section proposes other recommendations for U.S. policy that seek to further the supportive engagement with Cuba in those areas of mutual interest.
|
C. Adam Lanier, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010; J.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013, Winter 2013, “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571 //BW
|
experts agree tha Cuba is going to develop its oil resources no matter how fiercely the Cuban American lobby opposes it Washington's opinion carries little weight. Accepting that Cuba is going to develop its oil resources will allow the United States to search for a more collaborative solution with Cuba. Once a framework of collaboration and cooperation is established, both countries will reap benefits that have long been overshadowed by hostility the Western Hemisphere Energy Security Act is targeted at fostering a cooperative relationship that would facilitate the prevention of an oil spill in the Straits of Florida and ensure that both countries are better prepared would categorically "permit United States companies to participate in the exploration for and the extraction of hydrocarbon resources from any portion of a foreign maritime exclusive economic zone that is contiguous to the exclusive economic zone of the United States. The Act would also permit U.S. individuals to "engage in any transaction necessary" for the exploration and extraction of oil resources in a qualified zone and would allow those resources to be imported to the United States permit individuals to "export without license authority all equipment necessary for the exploration for or extraction of hydrocarbon resources, or oil spill prevention and clean-up activities ... sets the kind of accommodating and supportive tone n146 that has been unnecessarily [*594] absent from U.S.-Cuban relations
|
Science cooperation solves extinction – common goals
| 2,089 | 52 | 1,489 | 325 | 7 | 228 | 0.021538 | 0.701538 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,813 |
The more open travel and remittance measures put in place by the Clinton administration in 1998 and continued by the Bush administration until 2003 contributed to creating the conditions that brought about a more open political atmosphere. During the period now known as the “Cuban Spring,” Oswaldo payá, leader of the Varela project, worked with Cuba’s human rights activists to collect 11,000 signatures on a petition that requested a referendum on the Cuban constitution. Former president Jimmy Carter gave a speech at the University of Havana in Spanish in which he asked Fidel Castro—who was sitting in the front row—to permit the vote; the speech was broadcast live throughout the island. Martha Beatriz Roque, an important dissident leader, held a national assembly to advocate reforms to the Cuban government. Religious groups, with help from their American counterparts, provided equipment, food, and medicines to sister organizations that bolstered outreach to their communities. Students from colleges throughout the United States studying in Cuba were engaged in a lively discussion with students, academics, and people across the island. The presence of licensed American and Cuban American visitors provided moral support, advice, and assistance to diverse civil society institutions, allowing them to expand and more effectively assist their membership. And, interventions by U.S. government and private sector personalities with high-level Cuban officials resulted in reducing repression against dissidents, human rights activists, independent journalists, and librarians. This more fluid and open atmosphere was essential to the growth of civil society and to the freedoms and creation of spaces in which human rights activists and dissidents could operate.
|
Carlos Pascual et al. 4/2009, Vice president and Director of Foreign policy The Brookings institution vicki huddleston Visiting Fellow The Brookings institution project Advisers Gustavo Arnavat Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute dr. damián J. fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University dr. Marifeli pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. piñón Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas Co-Chairman Cuba Study Group, “CUBA:A New policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement,” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf //BW
|
more open travel measures contributed to creating the conditions that brought about a more open political atmosphere Jimmy Carter gave a speech at the University of Havana in Spanish in which he asked Fidel Castro—who was sitting in the front row—to permit the vote; the speech was broadcast live throughout the island. . Religious groups, with help from their American counterparts, provided equipment, food, and medicines to sister organizations that bolstered outreach Students from colleges throughout the United States studying in Cuba were engaged in a lively discussion with students, academics, and people presence of licensed American and Cuban American visitors provided moral support, advice, and assistance to diverse civil society institutions, allowing them to expand and more effectively assist their membership interventions by U.S. government and private sector personalities with high-level Cuban officials resulted in reducing repression more fluid and open atmosphere was essential to the growth of civil society and to the freedoms and creation of spaces in which human rights activists and dissidents could operate.
|
Plan: The President of the United States should significantly expand travel to Cuba by interpreting more broadly all categories of travel codified in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act and reinstating provisions rescinded under the Bush administration that were authorized by the TSRA.
| 1,774 | 304 | 1,137 | 262 | 45 | 168 | 0.171756 | 0.641221 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,814 |
The Helms-Burton Act (H-B) of 1996 defines conditions Cuba must meet for the United States to end the embargo. The Act codified embargo regulations, including the provision that states that all transactions are prohibited except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Treasury may use his licensing authorities to extend, revise, or modify the same regulations. President Clinton did so by instructing Treasury to issue licenses for various categories of travel, regulations that were subsequently codified by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of 2000. In view of the fact that, unlike Helms-Burton, the TSRA did not provide the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to modify its content, legislation is required to remove or expand travel beyond the provisions of the TSRA. Nevertheless, the president can significantly expand travel to Cuba by reinstating provisions authorized by law but rescinded under the Bush administration, and interpreting more broadly all categories of travel codified in the TSRA. The Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992 also legislated certain prohibitions, most notably on U.S. foreign subsidiary trade with Cuba, which, too, can only be revoked by an act of Congress. In sum, the president does not have the authority to end the embargo or lift the travel ban, but can effectively dismantle the current commercial embargo by using his licensing authority to permit U.S. exports of certain goods and services, two-way trade in a wide variety of goods and services, and/or allow broad categories of travel to Cuba.
|
Carlos Pascual et al. 4/2009, Vice president and Director of Foreign policy The Brookings institution vicki huddleston Visiting Fellow The Brookings institution project Advisers Gustavo Arnavat Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute dr. damián J. fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University dr. Marifeli pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. piñón Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas Co-Chairman Cuba Study Group, “CUBA:A New policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement,” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf //BW
|
the president can significantly expand travel to Cuba by reinstating provisions authorized by law but rescinded under the Bush administration, and interpreting more broadly all categories of travel codified in the TSRA. the president can effectively dismantle the embargo by using his licensing authority to permit broad categories of travel to Cuba.
|
XO solves – even if not every restriction is removed the current embargo is effectively rescinded through lifting most travel restrictions
| 1,632 | 138 | 350 | 256 | 21 | 52 | 0.082031 | 0.203125 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,815 |
President Obama should replicate these conditions through unilateral and unconditional actions that promote enhanced human contact by generously licensing all categories of travel permitted in the TSRA. He should, first, follow his campaign promise to grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to family travel and to send remittances to the island, since Cuban American connections to family are our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Further, the president should expand travel for all American citizens and permanent residents by instructing the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to license people-to-people travel for educational, cultural, and humanitarian purposes. Cuban citizens should also be permitted to travel to the United States for a variety of purposes —including family, academic and cultural visits—in order to enhance their understanding of our open and democratic society. The Secretary of State should instruct the Department of State and the United States interests Section (USiNT) in Havana to use standard criteria applied around the world for awarding non-immigrant visas to Cubans. This more tolerant approach would strengthen the bonds of family and culture, while helping the Cuban people improve their lives and grow the social organizations necessary for a democratic civil society.
|
Carlos Pascual et al. 4/2009, Vice president and Director of Foreign policy The Brookings institution vicki huddleston Visiting Fellow The Brookings institution project Advisers Gustavo Arnavat Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara dr. ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent dr. Jorge i. domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and latin American politics and Economics Harvard University daniel erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue dr. Mark falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute dr. damián J. fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University dr. Marifeli pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge r. piñón Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos saladrigas Co-Chairman Cuba Study Group, “CUBA:A New policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement,” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf //BW
|
Obama should replicate these conditions through unilateral and unconditional actions that promote enhanced human contact by generously licensing all categories of travel permitted the president should expand travel for all American citizens and permanent residents by instructing the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to license people-to-people travel for educational, cultural, and humanitarian purposes. Cuban citizens should be permitted to travel to the United States for a variety of purposes —including family, academic and cultural visits to enhance their understanding of our open and democratic society This more tolerant approach would strengthen the bonds of family and culture, while helping the Cuban people improve their lives and grow the social organizations necessary for a democratic civil society.
|
No Congressional action necessary – TSRA licensing and OFAC licensing is within the authority of the President
| 1,370 | 110 | 823 | 202 | 17 | 117 | 0.084158 | 0.579208 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,816 |
An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast.
|
C. Adam Lanier, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010; J.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013, Winter 2013, “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571 //BW
|
blowout in Cuban waters would require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. companies would also be barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies handful of U.S. spill responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a Cuban oil spill would be catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast.
|
US unilateral response takes too long
| 802 | 37 | 718 | 122 | 6 | 108 | 0.04918 | 0.885246 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,817 |
Aside from the short-term benefits discussed in the previous section, getting the private sector involved with Cuba's energy development could provide several long-term benefits to both the United States and Cuba. This initial engage-ment should be [*597] designed with a long-term view of encouraging U.S. investment in Cuba's energy sector. The U.S. government should use this opportunity as a way to help Cuba diversify its energy resources, which will push Cuba toward obtaining energy independence. n159 In doing so, the United States would help develop a new market in Cuba for U.S. products designed to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. n160 Many commentators have also suggested that one of the best ways to encourage economic reform in Cuba is to engage the country as a new market, which naturally promotes economic development and subsequent reforms. n161 By encouraging economic growth and development in Cuba during the current period of economic transformation on the island, n162 the United States will directly benefit the Cuban people by empowering them and allowing them to select their own form of government, rather than imposing American democracy. n163 Allowing the private sector to engage Cuba will ultimately increase the people-to-people contacts in Cuba, n164 re-vealing more of the interests shared by the two communities. This increased contact should ultimately lead Washington to engage in full diplomatic communication. The United States should begin this process sooner rather than later, so that it can help foster these goals of energy independence, economic development, and reform.
|
C. Adam Lanier, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010; J.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013, Winter 2013, “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571 //BW
|
getting the private sector involved with Cuba's energy development could provide several long-term benefits a way to help Cuba diversify its energy resources, which will push Cuba toward obtaining energy independence In doing so, the United States would help develop a new market in Cuba for U.S. products designed to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. n160 the best ways to encourage economic reform in Cuba is to engage the country as a new market, which naturally promotes economic development and subsequent reforms. the United States will directly benefit the Cuban people by empowering them and allowing them to select their own form of government Allowing the private sector to engage Cuba will ultimately increase the people-to-people contacts in Cuba, n164 re-vealing more of the interests shared by the two communities. This increased contact should ultimately lead Washington to engage in full diplomatic communication
|
Oil based energy cooperation spillsover to broader economic engagement
| 1,641 | 70 | 951 | 250 | 9 | 145 | 0.036 | 0.58 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,818 |
Nevertheless, congressional attitudes toward sanctions, the utility of engagement, or even U.S. relations with some of these countries are shaped by important factors beyond partisan affiliation. As the surprising partnerships forged among legislators concerning permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) for China demonstrate, partisan divisions can be overcome by passions surrounding matters of human rights, weapons proliferation, and U.S. economic power and opportunity. Many of these issues are at the heart of U.S. relations with North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq. Similarly, wide-spread support in both the Senate and the House to lift certain elements of the Cuban embargo, as well as to loosen restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to all nations, also indicate broad bipartisan agreement in some areas related to these countries.
|
Meghan L. O'Sullivan, Fellow at the Brookings Institute, Winter 2001, “The Politics of Dismantling Containment,” The Washington Quarterly, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/12/winter-sanctions-osullivan //BW
|
the surprising partnerships forged among legislators concerning PNTR) for China demonstrate, partisan divisions can be overcome by passions surrounding human rights, weapons proliferation, and economic power and opportunity wide-spread support in both the Senate and the House to lift certain elements of the Cuban embargo, as well as to loosen restrictions on the sale of food and medicine also indicate broad bipartisan agreement in some areas related to these countries.
|
Lifting the Cuban embargo is popular in Congress – economic interest overcomes partisanship
| 848 | 91 | 473 | 126 | 13 | 70 | 0.103175 | 0.555556 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,819 |
Despite the many good reasons to reassess US policy towards Cuba today, formidable obstacles have thus far prevented the sort of policy overhaul needed. Most importantly, sections of the Cuban-American community have vehemently opposed any policy changes which would confer legitimacy on Castro or possibly prolong his rule. Nevertheless, recent generational changes have opened possibilities for moderates to gain prominence in this community. In addition, the growing number of American farmers and businessmen expressing interest in doing business in Cuba indicates the existence of at least one influential domestic US constituency favouring engagement.
|
Richard N. Haass and Meghan L. O’Sullivan, former senior aide to Bush, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings AND a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, Summer 2k, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies,” Survival, vol. 42, no. 2 //BW
|
recent generational changes have opened possibilities for moderates to gain prominence growing number of American farmers and businessmen expressing interest in doing business in Cuba indicates the existence of influential domestic US constituency favouring engagement.
|
Key constituencies support economic engagement with Cuba – business, agriculture and Cuban-Americans
| 657 | 100 | 269 | 93 | 12 | 35 | 0.129032 | 0.376344 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,820 |
The majority of Cuban Americans now agree with the American public that our half-century-old policy toward Cuba has failed. For the first time since Florida international University (FiU) began polling Cuban American residents in 1991, a December 2008 poll found that a majority of Cuban American voters favor ending current restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, and support a bilateral dialogue and normal diplomatic relations with the Cuban regime by substantial margins.
|
Carlos Pascual et al. 4/2009, Vice president and Director of Foreign policy The Brookings institution Vicki Huddleston Visiting Fellow The Brookings institution project Advisers Gustavo Arnavat Attorney at law Ann Louise Bardach Author/Journalist University of California Santa Barbara Dr. Ramon Colás Co-Director Center for the Understanding of Cubans of African Descent Dr. Jorge I. Domínguez Vice-provost for international Affairs Antonio Madero professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and Economics Harvard University Daniel Erikson Senior Associate for U.S. policy Director of Caribbean programs inter-American Dialogue Dr. Mark Falcoff resident Scholar Emeritus American Enterprise institute Dr. Damián J. Fernández provost and Executive Vice president purchase College dr. Andy s. Gomez Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Assistant provost, University of Miami Senior Fellow, institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies Jesús Gracia Former Spanish Ambassador to Cuba paul hare Former British Ambassador to Cuba francisco J. (pepe) hernández president Cuban American National Foundation dr. William LeoGrande Dean, School of public Affairs American University Dr. Marifeli Pérez-stable Vice president for Democratic Governance inter-American Dialogue Jorge R. Piñón Energy Fellow Center for Hemispheric policy University of Miami dr. Archibald Ritter Distinguished research professor Emeritus Department of Economics and Norman Paterson School of international Affairs Carleton University Andrés Rozental Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings institution Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico Carlos Saladrigas Co-Chairman Cuba Study Group, “CUBA:A New policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement,” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf //BW
|
majority of Cuban Americans now agree that our half-century-old policy toward Cuba has failed a December 2008 poll found that a majority of Cuban American voters favor ending current restrictions on travel to Cuba, and support a bilateral dialogue and normal diplomatic relations with the Cuban regime
|
Polls prove Cuban Americans love the plan
| 483 | 41 | 301 | 73 | 7 | 47 | 0.09589 | 0.643836 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,821 |
A change in the tone of U.S. policy toward Cuba is long overdue. n175 Although there is significant bipartisan support for shifting U.S. policy toward Cuba to a more engaging model, n176 the sharply polarized environment in Washington seems to force legislators to remain at loggerheads. n177 The intransigency of the parties has led to repeated instances of brinkmanship, n178 which is counterproductive to the national interest. Engaging with Cuba in the development of its energy resources is an issue that both parties should be able to agree on, even over the objections of the minority, who continue to take a hardline approach to anything related to Cuba. n179 This issue is simply too important. As Dan Whittle, director of the Environmental Defense Fund's Cuba Project, put it: "This isn't about politics. It's about protecting our beaches, our shores, our fishermen, our communities." n180
|
C. Adam Lanier, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010; J.D. Candidate, University of North Carolina School of Law, 2013, Winter 2013, “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571 //BW
|
there is significant bipartisan support for shifting U.S. policy toward Cuba to a more engaging model Engaging with Cuba in the development of its energy resources is an issue that both parties should be able to agree on, even over the objections of the minority This isn't about politics. It's about protecting our beaches, our shores, our fishermen, our communities.
|
Plan is bipart - Environmental concerns and current support to end the embargo
| 899 | 78 | 368 | 144 | 13 | 60 | 0.090278 | 0.416667 |
Cuban Embargo Affirmative - DDI 2013 KQ.html5
|
Dartmouth DDI
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,822 |
The emergence of peer competitors, not terrorism, presents the greatest long-term threat to our national security. Over the past decade, while the United States concentrated its geopolitical focus on fighting two land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, China has quietly begun implementing a strategy to emerge as the dominant imperial power within Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. Within the next 2 decades, China will likely replace the United States as the Asia-Pacific regional hegemonic power, if not replace us as the global superpower.1 Although China presents its rise as peaceful and non-hegemonic, its construction of naval bases in neighboring countries and military expansion in the region contradict that argument. With a credible threat to its leading position in a unipolar global order, the United States should adopt a grand strategy of “investment,” building legitimacy and capacity in the very institutions that will protect our interests in a liberal global construct of the future when we are no longer the dominant imperial power. Similar to the Clinton era's grand strategy of “enlargement,”2 investment supports a world order predicated upon a system of basic rules and principles, however, it differs in that the United States should concentrate on the institutions (i.e., United Nations, World Trade Organization, ASEAN, alliances, etc.) that support a world order, as opposed to expanding democracy as a system of governance for other sovereign nations. Despite its claims of a benevolent expansion, China is already executing a strategy of expansion similar to that of Imperial Japan's Manchukuo policy during the 1930s.3 This three-part strategy involves: “(i) (providing) significant investments in economic infrastructure for extracting natural resources; (ii) (conducting) military interventions (to) protect economic interests; and, (iii) . . . (annexing) via installation of puppet governments.”4 China has already solidified its control over neighboring North Korea and Burma, and has similarly begun more ambitious engagements in Africa and Central Asia where it seeks to expand its frontier.5 Noted political scientist Samuel P. Huntington provides further analysis of the motives behind China's imperial aspirations. He contends that “China (has) historically conceived itself as encompassing a “‘Sinic Zone'. . . (with) two goals: to become the champion of Chinese culture . . . and to resume its historical position, which it lost in the nineteenth century, as the hegemonic power in East Asia.”6 Furthermore, China holds one quarter of the world's population, and rapid economic growth will increase its demand for natural resources from outside its borders as its people seek a standard of living comparable to that of Western civilization. The rise of peer competitors has historically resulted in regional instability and one should compare “the emergence of China to the rise of. . . Germany as the dominant power in Europe in the late nineteenth century.”7 Furthermore, the rise of another peer competitor on the level of the Soviet Union of the Cold War ultimately threatens U.S. global influence, challenging its concepts of human rights, liberalism, and democracy; as well as its ability to co-opt other nations to accept them.8 This decline in influence, while initially limited to the Asia-Pacific region, threatens to result in significant conflict if it ultimately leads to a paradigm shift in the ideas and principles that govern the existing world order. A grand strategy of investment to address the threat of China requires investing in institutions, addressing ungoverned states, and building legitimacy through multilateralism. The United States must build capacity in the existing institutions and alliances accepted globally as legitimate representative bodies of the world's governments. For true legitimacy, the United States must support these institutions, not only when convenient, in order to avoid the appearance of unilateralism, which would ultimately undermine the very organizations upon whom it will rely when it is no longer the global hegemon. The United States must also address ungoverned states, not only as breeding grounds for terrorism, but as conflicts that threaten to spread into regional instability, thereby drawing in superpowers with competing interests. Huntington proposes that the greatest source of conflict will come from what he defines as one “core” nation's involvement in a conflict between another core nation and a minor state within its immediate sphere of influence.9 For example, regional instability in South Asia10 threatens to involve combatants from the United States, India, China, and the surrounding nations. Appropriately, the United States, as a global power, must apply all elements of its national power now to address the problem of weak and failing states, which threaten to serve as the principal catalysts of future global conflicts.11 Admittedly, the application of American power in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation raises issues. Experts have posed the question of whether the United States should act as the world's enforcer of stability, imposing its concepts of human rights on other states. In response to this concern, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty authored a study titled, The Responsibility to Protect,12 calling for revisions to the understanding of sovereignty within the United Nations (UN) charter. This commission places the responsibility to protect peoples of sovereign nations on both the state itself and, more importantly, on the international community.13 If approved, this revision will establish a precedent whereby the United States has not only the authority and responsibility to act within the internal affairs of a repressive government, but does so with global legitimacy if done under the auspices of a UN mandate. Any effort to legitimize and support a liberal world construct requires the United States to adopt a multilateral doctrine which avoids the precepts of the previous administration: “preemptive war, democratization, and U.S. primacy of unilateralism,”14 which have resulted in the alienation of former allies worldwide. Predominantly Muslim nations, whose citizens had previously looked to the United States as an example of representative governance, viewed the Iraq invasion as the seminal dividing action between the Western and the Islamic world. Appropriately, any future American interventions into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation must first seek to establish consensus by gaining the approval of a body representing global opinion, and must reject military unilateralism as a threat to that governing body's legitimacy. Despite the long-standing U.S. tradition of a liberal foreign policy since the start of the Cold War, the famous liberal leviathan, John Ikenberry, argues that “the post-9/11 doctrine of national security strategy . . . has been based on . . . American global dominance, the preventative use of force, coalitions of the willing, and the struggle between liberty and evil.”15 American foreign policy has misguidedly focused on spreading democracy, as opposed to building a liberal international order based on universally accepted principles that actually set the conditions for individual nation states to select their own system of governance. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, argues that true Wilsonian idealists “support liberal democracy, but reject the possibility of democratizing peoples . . .”16 and reject military primacy in favor of supporting a rules-based system of order. Investment in a liberal world order would also set the conditions for the United States to garner support from noncommitted regional powers (i.e., Russia, India, Japan, etc.), or “swing civilizations,” in countering China's increasing hegemonic influence.17 These states reside within close proximity to the Indian Ocean, which will likely emerge as the geopolitical focus of the American foreign policy during the 21st century, and appropriately have the ability to offset China's imperial dominance in the region.18 Critics of a liberal world construct argue that idealism is not necessary, based on the assumption that nations that trade together will not go to war with each other.19 In response, foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman rebukes their arguments, acknowledging the predicate of commercial interdependence as a factor only in the decision to go to war, and argues that while globalization is creating a new international order, differences between civilizations still create friction that may overcome all other factors and lead to conflict.20 Detractors also warn that as China grows in power, it will no longer observe “the basic rules and principles of a liberal international order,” which largely result from Western concepts of foreign relations. Ikenberry addresses this risk, citing that China's leaders already recognize that they will gain more authority within the existing liberal order, as opposed to contesting it. China's leaders “want the protection and rights that come from the international order's . . . defense of sovereignty,”21 from which they have benefitted during their recent history of economic growth and international expansion. Even if China executes a peaceful rise and the United States overestimates a Sinic threat to its national security interest, the emergence of a new imperial power will challenge American leadership in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region. That being said, it is more likely that China, as evidenced by its military and economic expansion, will displace the United States as the regional hegemonic power. Recognizing this threat now, the United States must prepare for the eventual transition and immediately begin building the legitimacy and support of a system of rules that will protect its interests later when we are no longer the world's only superpower.
|
Fujimoto, 2012 (Kevin, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army, January 11, 2012, “Preserving U.S. National Security Interests Through a Liberal World Construct,” http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Preserving-US-National-Security-Interests-Liberal-World-Construct/2012/1/11)
|
The emergence of peer competitors, not terrorism, presents the greatest long-term threat to our national security hina has quietly begun implementing a strategy to emerge as the dominant imperial power Within the next 2 decades, China will likely replace the United States as the Asia-Pacific regional hegemonic power With a credible threat to its leading position in a unipolar global order, the United States should adopt a grand strategy of “investment,” building legitimacy and capacity in the very institutions that will protect our interests in a liberal global construct of the future investment supports a world order predicated upon a system of basic rules and principles the United States should concentrate on the institutions that support a world order, as opposed to expanding democracy 4 China has already solidified its control over neighboring North Korea and Burma, and has similarly begun more ambitious engagements in Africa and Central Asia China (has) two goals: to become the champion of Chinese culture . . . and to resume its historical position as the hegemonic power in East Asia The rise of peer competitors has historically resulted in regional instability and one should compare “the emergence of China to the rise of. . . Germany as the dominant power in Europe in the late nineteenth century This decline in influence, while initially limited to the Asia-Pacific region, threatens to result in significant conflict if it ultimately leads to a paradigm shift in the ideas and principles that govern the existing world order the United States must support these institutions, not only when convenient, in order to avoid the appearance of unilateralism, which would ultimately undermine the very organizations upon whom it will rely when it is no longer the global hegemon The United States must also address ungoverned states the United States, as a global power, must apply all elements of its national power now to address the problem of weak and failing states, which threaten to serve as the principal catalysts of future global conflicts this revision will establish a precedent whereby the United States has not only the authority and responsibility to act within the internal affairs of a repressive government, but does so with global legitimacy if done under the auspices of a UN mandate Any effort to legitimize and support a liberal world construct requires the United States to adopt a multilateral doctrine which avoids the precepts of the previous administration: “preemptive war, democratization, and U.S. primacy of unilateralism , any future American interventions into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation must first seek to establish consensus by gaining the approval of a body representing global opinion, and must reject military unilateralism American foreign policy has misguidedly focused on spreading democracy, as opposed to building a liberal international order based on universally accepted principles true Wilsonian idealists “support liberal democracy, but reject the possibility of democratizing peoples and reject military primacy in favor of supporting a rules-based system of order. China's leaders already recognize that they will gain more authority within the existing liberal order, as opposed to contesting it. China's leaders “want the protection and rights that come from the international order's . . . defense of sovereignty it is more likely that China, as evidenced by its military and economic expansion, will displace the United States as the regional hegemonic power. Recognizing this threat now, the United States must prepare for the eventual transition and immediately begin building the legitimacy and support of a system of rules that will protect its interests later when we are no longer the world's only superpower
|
The rise of global competitors is inevitable-bolstering relations with non-democratic powers is key to maintaining peaceful relations with rising powers and preventing great-power conflict
| 10,053 | 188 | 3,813 | 1,521 | 24 | 596 | 0.015779 | 0.391847 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,823 |
The two countries’ histories have long been intertwined, particularly after the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 gave rise to the American belief that it would become the hemisphere’s protector. Until the immediate aftermath of Fidel Castro’s revolution, Cuba provided a testing ground for the promotion of American ideals, social beliefs, and foreign policies. In the context of Raúl shifting course in Cuba, the Obama administration has the opportunity to highlight the benefits of both the use of soft power and a foreign policy of engagement. As evidence mounts that the United States is ready to engage countries that enact domestic reforms, its legitimacy and influence will grow. Perhaps future political leaders, in Iran or North Korea for example, will be more willing to make concessions knowing that the United States will return in kind. The United States should not wait for extensive democratization before further engaging Cuba, however. One legacy of the Cold War is that Communism has succeeded only where it grew out of its own, often nationalistic, revolutions. As it has with China and Vietnam, the United States should look closely at the high payoffs stemming from engagement. By improving relations, America can enhance its own influence on the island’s political structure and human rights policies. At home, with the trade deficit and national debt rising, the economic costs of the embargo are amplified. Recent studies estimate that the US economy foregoes up to $4.84 billion a year and the Cuban economy up to $685 million a year.50 While US-Cuban economic interests align, political considerations inside America have shifted, as “commerce seems to be trumping anti-Communism and Florida ideologues.”51 Clearly, public opinion also favors a new Cuba policy, with 65 percent of Americans now ready for a shift in the country’s approach to its neighboring island.52 At this particular moment in the history of US-Cuban relations, there is tremendous promise for a breakthrough in relations. In a post-Cold War world, Cuba no longer presents a security threat to the united States, but instead provides it with economic potential. American leaders cannot forget the fact that an economic embargo, combined with diplomatic isolation, has failed to bring democracy to Cuba for over 50 years. American policymakers should see Cuba as an opportunity to reap the political, economic, and strategic rewards of shifting its own policies toward engagement. By ending the economic embargo and normalizing diplomatic relations with the island, President Obama would indicate that he is truly willing to extend his hand once America’s traditional adversaries unclench their fists.
|
Hinderdael, 2011 (Klaas, M.A. candidate at SAIS Bologna Center, concentrating in American Foreign Policy and Energy, Resources, and Environment, “Breaking the Logjam: Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership”, 6/11/2011, http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true)
|
The two countries’ histories have long been intertwined Cuba provided a testing ground for the promotion of American ideals, social beliefs, and foreign policies the Obama administration has the opportunity to highlight the benefits of both the use of soft power and a foreign policy of engagement . Perhaps future political leaders, in Iran or North Korea for example, will be more willing to make concessions knowing that the United States will return in kind The United States should not wait for extensive democratization before further engaging Cuba By improving relations, America can enhance its own influence on the island’s political structure and human rights policies the US economy foregoes up to $4.84 billion a year and the Cuban economy up to $685 million a year political considerations inside America have shifted, as “commerce seems to be trumping anti-Communism At this particular moment in the history of US-Cuban relations, there is tremendous promise for a breakthrough in relations an economic embargo has failed to bring democracy to Cuba for over 50 years. American policymakers should see Cuba as an opportunity to reap the political, economic, and strategic rewards of shifting its own policies toward engagement. By ending the economic embargo and normalizing diplomatic relations with the island, President Obama would indicate that he is truly willing to extend his hand once America’s traditional adversaries unclench their fists.
|
The embargo is the symbol of failed American democratization- a full repeal is key to send an international signal of willingness to engage non-democratic states
| 2,687 | 161 | 1,461 | 419 | 25 | 227 | 0.059666 | 0.541766 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,824 |
A signal to the world Beyond the domestic political benefit of acknowledging a changing Cuban American community, a new approach to Cuba would send an important signal to the world. While complex foreign policy issues from Darfur to Iraq will take years to resolve in cooperation with the international community, with respect to Cuba it would be relatively easy to demonstrate clear, progressive change immediately through a simple Federal Register notice and a new diplomatic approach. Even small changes to policy and rhetoric would send a strong message to U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, who will be looking for early signs from the next administration. The United States‘ reputation in the world has slid dramatically over the past eight years. Large majorities in key allies such as Canada (77 percent), France (75 percent), Mexico (66 percent), and the United Kingdom (67 percent) say that their opinion of the United States has gotten worse since the start of the Bush presidency. Less than one-half of respondents in Canada and the United Kingdom think that the relationship with the United States is a friendship.40 A troubling number think that Bush and the U.S. presence in Iraq are greater threats to world peace than Kim Jong-Il and the Iranian nuclear program, and view Beijing more favorably than Washington.41 In order for the United States to improve its image in the world, the next president will have to offer new policies that demonstrate a commitment to working with allies and a pragmatic, engagement-oriented approach to foreign policy challenges. Cuba policy offers this opportunity. Embargo politics have kept the United States from pursuing easily attainable changes to policy. With the stroke of a pen, the next president could unilaterally demonstrate that he is willing to try a different approach by allowing greater freedom of travel for U.S. citizens to Cuba. A diplomatic approach to Cuba would signal that the president is willing to pursue peaceful solutions to difficult problems, even if those initial efforts do not bear fruit immediately. Multilaterally, overtures to U.S. allies to promote rule of law, economic development, and human rights in Cuba would be a welcome change from the unproductive criticism that has become the hallmark of recent U.S. policy. Compared with difficult challenges such as stabilizing Afghanistan or containing Iran, Cuba is an easy place to showcase change. ―The next administration needs to have an early win,‖ says former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Peter Romero. 42 Romero, who was a key player in the Clinton administration‘s second-term efforts to increase people-topeople exchanges, adds, ―We‘ve been on a losing streak for so long, something that breaks the paradigm and shows bold strokes would have an enormous impact. I think you can do that with Cuba.‖
|
Colvin, 2008 (Jake, fellow with the New Ideas Fund, a group that seeks new approaches and paradigms for U.S. national security and foreign policy. He is also Vice President for Global Trade Issues at the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) and oversees the Cuba initiative of USA*Engage, “The Case for a New Cuba Policy”, 12/23/2008, http://web.archive.org/web/20120904201743/http://www.newideasfund.org/proposals/Colvin%20-%20Cuba%20-%20Master.pdf)
|
a new approach to Cuba would send an important signal to the world with respect to Cuba it would be relatively easy to demonstrate clear, progressive change immediately changes to policy and rhetoric would send a strong message to U.S. allies, particularly in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, who will be looking for early signs from the next administration The United States‘ reputation in the world has slid dramatically over the past eight years Large majorities in key allies say that their opinion of the United States has gotten worse A troubling number think that Bush and the U.S. presence in Iraq are greater threats to world peace than Kim Jong-Il and the Iranian nuclear program the next president will have to offer new policies that demonstrate a commitment to working with allies and a pragmatic, engagement-oriented approach to foreign policy challenges Cuba policy offers this opportunity Embargo politics have kept the United States from pursuing easily attainable changes to policy. the next president could unilaterally demonstrate that he is willing to try a different approach by allowing greater freedom A diplomatic approach to Cuba would signal that the president is willing to pursue peaceful solutions to difficult problems . Compared with difficult challenges such as stabilizing Afghanistan or containing Iran, Cuba is an easy place to showcase change something that breaks the paradigm and shows bold strokes would have an enormous impact. I think you can do that with Cuba.‖
|
And, diplomatic commitment to Cuba without them having met democratization requirements sends a vast international signal of the US commitment to global engagement
| 2,902 | 163 | 1,507 | 462 | 23 | 241 | 0.049784 | 0.521645 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,825 |
Many American strategists recognize the inevitability of a more level global playing field, but they have arrived at an illusory response: that the United States and its democratic allies should dedicate the twilight hours of their primacy to universalizing the Western order. According to G. John Ikenberry, a political scientist at Princeton University, “The United States’ global position may be weakening, but the international system the United States leads can remain the dominant order of the twenty-first century.” The West should “sink the roots of this order as deeply as possible” to ensure that the world continues to play by its rules even as its material preponderance wanes. Such confidence in the universality of the Western order is, however, based on wishful thinking about the likely trajectory of ascending powers, which throughout history have sought to adjust the prevailing order in ways that favor their own interests. Presuming that rising states will readily take their seats at the West’s table is unrealistic and even dangerous, promising to alienate emerging powers that will be pivotal to global stability in the years ahead. Instead, the West will have to make room for the competing visions of rising powers and prepare for an international system in which its principles no longer serve as the primary anchor. Sinking the roots of the West, founding a “league of democracies,” and turning NATO into a global alliance of democratic states would be admirable visions in a politically homogeneous world. But the Western model does not command widespread acceptance. If the next international system is to be characterized by norm-governed order rather than competitive anarchy, it will have to be based on great-power consensus and toleration of political diversity rather than Western primacy and the single-minded pursuit of universal democracy. To that end, the United States should take the lead in fashioning a more diverse and inclusive global order. Call it the “Autonomy Rule”: the terms of the next order should be negotiated among all states, be they democratic or not, that provide responsible governance and broadly promote the autonomy and welfare of their citizens. The West will have to give as much as it gets in shaping the world that comes next. This approach does not constitute acquiescence to illiberalism, but rather a more progressive understanding of America’s liberal tradition. Just as it does at home, the United States should welcome diversity abroad, accepting that liberal democracy must compete respectfully in the marketplace of ideas with other types of regimes. Indeed, toleration of reasonably just alternative political systems will promote U.S. interests far more effectively than the hubris of neoconservatism or the narrow idealism of the current liberal consensus. Respect for responsible governments, toleration of political and cultural diversity, balance between global governance and devolution to regional authorities, and a more modest brand of globalization—these are the principles around which the next order is most likely to take shape.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2009, http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
Many American strategists recognize the inevitability of a more level global playing field, but they have arrived at an illusory response: that the United States and its democratic allies should dedicate the twilight hours of their primacy to universalizing the Western o Such confidence in the universality of the Western order is, however, based on wishful thinking about the likely trajectory of ascending powers . Presuming that rising states will readily take their seats at the West’s table is unrealistic and even dangerous, promising to alienate emerging powers that will be pivotal to global stability the West will have to make room for the competing visions of rising powers and prepare for an international system in which its principles no longer serve as the primary anchor. Sinking the roots of the West, founding a “league of democracies,” and turning NATO into a global alliance of democratic states would be admirable visions in a politically homogeneous world. But the Western model does not command widespread acceptance , it will have to be based on great-power consensus and toleration of political diversity rather than Western primacy and the single-minded pursuit of universal democracy the United States should take the lead in fashioning a more diverse and inclusive global order the terms of the next order should be negotiated among all states, be they democratic or not that provide responsible governance and broadly promote the autonomy and welfare of their citizens the United States should welcome diversity abroad, accepting that liberal democracy must compete respectfully in the marketplace of ideas with other types of regimes toleration of reasonably just alternative political systems will promote U.S. interests far more effectively these are the principles around which the next order is most likely to take shape.
|
And, the plan’s embrace of political diversity promotes U.S. interests more effectively in the multilateral international order than promoting a narrow democratic model
| 3,117 | 169 | 1,856 | 483 | 23 | 291 | 0.047619 | 0.602484 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,826 |
Although Western hegemony is in its waning days, it still provides a significant level of global stability. Teamwork between the United States and the EU continues to represent the world's most important partnership. The EU's aggregate wealth rivals America's, and the U.S. economy will remain number one into the next decade. The American military will maintain its primacy well beyond the next decade, and Washington's diplomatic clout will be second to none for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the stability afforded by Western predominance will slip away in step with its material and ideological primacy. Accordingly, the West must work with emerging powers to take advantage of the current window of opportunity to map out the rules that will govern the next world. Otherwise, multipolarity coupled with ideological dissensus will ensure balance-of-power competition and unfettered jockeying for power, position, and prestige. It is far preferable to arrive at a new rules-based order by design rather than head toward a new anarchy by default. The goal should be to forge a consensus among major states about the foundational principles of the next world. The West will have to be ready for compromise; the rules must be acceptable to powers that adhere to very different conceptions of what constitutes a just and acceptable order. The political diversity that will characterize the next world suggests that aiming low and crafting a rules-based order that endures is wiser than aiming high and coming away empty-handed. What follows is a sketch of what the rules of the next order might look like—a set of principles on which the West and the rising rest may well be able to find common ground. Defining Legitimacy Under American leadership, the West has propagated a conception of order that equates political legitimacy with liberal democracy. If a new rules-based order is to emerge, the West will have to embrace political diversity rather than insist that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government. To be sure, nondemocracies currently have their say in global institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the G-20. But even as the West does business with autocracies in these and other settings, it also delegitimates them in word and action. The United States leads the charge on this front. In his second inaugural address, George W. Bush stated that, "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.... So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." Although of different political stripes, Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly in 2010 that "experience shows us that history is on the side of liberty; that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies, and open governments. To put it simply, democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens."- Obama also made clear his commitment to democracy promotion in outlining the U.S. response to the Arab Spring: The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders.... Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest... it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.2 Europe generally shares this outlook. Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, declared in 2010 that, "democracy, human rights, security, governance and sustainable development are intrinsically linked. Democratic principles have their roots in universal norms and values."- Such statements affirm Robert Kagan's observation that elites in the West "have operated on the ideological conviction that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government and that other forms of government are not only illegitimate but transitory.'' This stance is morally compelling and consistent with values deeply held among the Atlantic democracies. But the equation of legitimacy with democracy undermines the West's influence among emerging powers. Even countries like Brazil and India, both of which are stable democracies, tend to view the West's obsession with democracy promotion as little more than uninvited meddling in the affairs of others. The backlash is of course considerably harsher in autocracies such as China and Russia, which regularly warn the United States and the EU to stay out of the domestic affairs of other countries. In Putin's words, "We are all perfectly aware of the realities of domestic political life. I do not think it is really necessary to explain anything to anybody. We are not going to interfere in domestic politics, just as we do not think that they should prevent practical relations ... from developing. Domestic politics are domestic politics." For the West to speak out against political repression and overt violations of the rule of law is not only warranted but obligatory. But to predicate constructive relations with rising powers on their readiness to embrace a Western notion of legitimacy is another matter altogether. Senator John McCain is off course in insisting that "It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace."— On the contrary, only if the West works cooperatively with all regimes willing to reciprocate—democracies and nondemocracies alike—will it be able to build an enduring peace. Terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security, water and food security, financial crisis—these challenges are global in nature and can be effectively addressed only in partnership with a wide array of countries. It makes little sense for the West to denigrate and ostracize regimes whose cooperation it needs to fashion a secure new order; the stakes are too high. Western countries only harm their own interests when they label as illegitimate governments that are not liberal democracies. Recognizing the next world's inevitable political diversity and thereby consolidating cooperation with rising powers of diverse regime type is far more sensible than insisting on the universality of Western conceptions of legitimacy—and alienating potential partners. The West and rising rest must arrive at a new, more inclusive, notion of legitimacy if they are to agree on an ideological foundation for the next world.
|
Kupchan, 2012 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “No One's World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn”, Kindle edition (no page numbers)
|
The American military will maintain its primacy well beyond the next decade, and Washington's diplomatic clout will be second to none for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the stability afforded by Western predominance will slip away in step with its material and ideological primacy the West must work with emerging powers to take advantage of the current window of opportunity Otherwise, multipolarity coupled with ideological dissensus will ensure balance-of-power competition and unfettered jockeying for power, position, and prestige The goal should be to forge a consensus among major states about the foundational principles of the next world —a set of principles on which the West and the rising rest may well be able to find common ground. the West has propagated a conception of order that equates political legitimacy with liberal democracy. If a new rules-based order is to emerge, the West will have to embrace political diversity rather than insist that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government even as the West does business with autocracies in these and other settings, it also delegitimates them in word and action The United States leads the charge on this front Obama also made clear his commitment to democracy promotion in outlining the U.S. response to the Arab Spring Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, declared that, "democracy, human rights, security, governance and sustainable development are intrinsically linked This stance is morally compelling and consistent with values deeply held among the Atlantic democracies. But the equation of legitimacy with democracy undermines the West's influence among emerging powers Even countries like Brazil and India, both of which are stable democracies, tend to view the West's obsession with democracy promotion as little more than uninvited meddling in the affairs of others The backlash is of course considerably harsher in autocracies such as China and Russia, which regularly warn the United States and the EU to stay out of the domestic affairs of other countries to predicate constructive relations with rising powers on their readiness to embrace a Western notion of legitimacy is another matter altogether only if the West works cooperatively with all regimes willing to reciprocate—democracies and nondemocracies alike—will it be able to build an enduring peace Terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security, water and food security, financial crisis—these challenges are global in nature and can be effectively addressed only in partnership with a wide array of countries It makes little sense for the West to denigrate and ostracize regimes whose cooperation it needs to fashion a secure new order Western countries only harm their own interests when they label as illegitimate governments that are not liberal democracies Recognizing the next world's inevitable political diversity and thereby consolidating cooperation with rising powers of diverse regime type is far more sensible than insisting on the universality of Western conceptions of legitimacy—and alienating potential partners The West and rising rest must arrive at a more inclusive, notion of legitimacy
|
And, cooperation with a plurality of governance models prevents great power war--- democracy promotion will cause unstable multipolarity, crush U.S. leadership, and prevent global solutions to warming and terrorism
| 6,614 | 214 | 3,255 | 1,045 | 29 | 496 | 0.027751 | 0.474641 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,827 |
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed, not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. "In legitimate scientific circles," writes Elizabeth Kolbert, "it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming."83 Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: • an international panel predicts "brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century"; • climate change could "literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria"; • "glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and... worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than they did a decade ago"; • "rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes"; • "NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second"; • "Earth's warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year" as disease spreads: • "widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad ... killed broad swaths of corals" due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures.84 "The world is slowly disintegrating," concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. "They call it climate change,... but we just call it breaking up."85 From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase. We are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands. At a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina's outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow.86 Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP.87 But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that "humankind's continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth's climate and humanity's life-support system."88 At worst, says physics professor Marty Hof-fert of New York University, "we're just going to burn everything up; we're going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous, when there were crocodiles at the poles. And then everything will collapse."89 During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet.90 Global warming is the post-Cold War era's equivalent of nuclear winter, at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run, it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity of the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
|
Deibel, 2007 (Terry, Professor of National Strategy at the National War College, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft”, pgs. 387-389)
|
there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty In legitimate scientific circles it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming an international panel predicts "brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century climate change could "literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes Earth's warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year" as disease spreads We are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries At a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, the best one can conclude is that "humankind's continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth's climate and humanity's life-support system we're just going to burn everything up Global warming is the post-Cold War era's equivalent of nuclear winter, at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity of the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet
|
And, warming leads to extinction
| 5,174 | 32 | 2,176 | 816 | 5 | 349 | 0.006127 | 0.427696 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,828 |
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.
|
Ayson, 2010 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 33 Iss. 7, July)
|
a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not separable an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the U S how might the U S react if it discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks a nuclear explosion radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea Iran and possibly Pakistan if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the U S a perpetrator Washington’s early response to a attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment it is possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use nuclear force) against them the temptations to preempt might grow Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence If Washington found the responses of Russia and China underwhelming might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing ) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway
|
And – Nuclear terrorism invokes a massive nuclear superpower war that can only culminate in extinction
| 9,331 | 102 | 2,611 | 1,530 | 16 | 427 | 0.010458 | 0.279085 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,829 |
Critics from the right will see this call for toleration of political diversity as moral relativism, while critics on the left will label it as abandonment of a progressive agenda. For neoconservatives, non-democracies must be defeated; for liberals, they must be seduced. Both believe that Western values should be universal values—and that their dispersal represents the most important form of progress. Policies of impatient democratization, however, will do much more to impede than impel history’s advance. From the Balkans to Iraq to the Palestinian territories, a rush to the ballot box has undercut moderates and stoked sectarian and ideological cleavages, not furthered the cause of political stability. Washington should continue to promote democracy by example and incentive. But if the United States insists on universal adherence to the Western order it oversees, it will only compromise its persuasive appeal and its ability to help ensure that liberal democracy ultimately wins the long struggle against alternative systems of government. Instead, the United States should take the lead in constructing a more pluralist international order. Were Washington to orchestrate the arrival of this next order, it would not denigrate the accomplishments of democracy, but rather demonstrate an abiding confidence in the values the West holds dear and in the ability of liberal forms of government to outperform and ultimately prevail against authoritarian alternatives. Cultivating new stakeholders, carefully devolving international responsibility to regional actors, and placing the international economy on a more stable footing will also allow the United States the respite needed to focus on rebuilding the foundations of its own prosperity. The United States will be better off if it gets ahead of the curve and helps craft a new order that is sustainable than if it fights a losing battle against tectonic shifts in global politics. As Kissinger observes, “America needs to learn to discipline itself into a strategy of gradualism that seeks greatness in the accumulation of the attainable.” The United States can steward the onset of this more diverse and inclusive world in a manner that remains consonant with the deepest American values. Doing so would help restore America’s moral authority as a leading member of the community of nations, in the end making it more likely that other nations would be as respectful of America’s preferences as America should be of theirs.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2009, http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
Critics from the right will see this call for toleration of political diversity as moral relativism, while critics on the left will label it as abandonment of a progressive agenda Policies of impatient democratization, however, will do much more to impede than impel history’s advance From the Balkans to Iraq to the Palestinian territories, a rush to the ballot box has undercut moderates and stoked sectarian and ideological cleavages, not furthered the cause of political stability. if the United States insists on universal adherence to the Western order it oversees, it will only compromise its persuasive appeal and its ability to help ensure that liberal democracy ultimately wins the long struggle the United States should take the lead in constructing a more pluralist international order . Cultivating new stakeholders, carefully devolving international responsibility to regional actors, and placing the international economy on a more stable footing will also allow the United States the respite needed to focus on rebuilding the foundations of its own prosperity As Kissinger observes America needs to learn to discipline itself into a strategy of gradualism that seeks greatness in the accumulation of the attainable Doing so would help restore America’s moral authority as a leading member of the community of nations making it more likely that other nations would be as respectful of America’s preferences as America should be of theirs
|
And, accepting political diversity’s more likely to resolve every impact than aggressive democracy promotion---the current democratization strategy can only backfire and strengthen the resolve of the non-democratic states it attempts to isolate
| 2,491 | 245 | 1,452 | 385 | 32 | 226 | 0.083117 | 0.587013 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,830 |
An order that welcomes political diversity would constitute a stark departure from the norms and practices that have governed international politics since World War II. Western norms would no longer enjoy pride of place; authority would not be concentrated in Washington, nor legitimacy derived solely from a transatlantic consensus. Instead, Western concepts of legitimacy would combine with those of other countries and cultures, distributing responsibility to a wider array of states. By casting the net widely, a more inclusive order would encourage stability by broadening consensus, producing new stakeholders, and further marginalizing states that are predatory at home or abroad.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2009, http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
An order that welcomes political diversity would constitute a stark departure from the norms and practices that have governed international politics since World War II authority would not be concentrated in Washington, nor legitimacy derived solely from a transatlantic consensus Western concepts of legitimacy would combine with those of other countries and cultures By casting the net widely, a more inclusive order would encourage stability by broadening consensus and further marginalizing states that are predatory at home or abroad.
|
Cross-regime-type cooperation causes broad global normative consensus---makes every power a stakeholder with an incentive to maintain stability
| 687 | 144 | 538 | 100 | 17 | 79 | 0.17 | 0.79 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,831 |
These examples aside, Brooks and Wohlforth also fail to address another important pathway through which norms and rules constrain the exercise of US power. They focus exclusively on the costs to the United States of its own failure to comply with the institutions and rules that Washington took the lead in crafting after the close of World War II. But in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that began in 2008 and amid the ongoing ascent of China, India, Brazil, and other rising states, change in ordering norms may well be driven by the preferences and policies of emerging powers, not by those of the United States. Moreover, the impressive economic performance and political staying power of regimes that practice non-democratic brands of capitalism—such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—call into question the durability of the normative order erected during America’s watch. Well before emerging powers catch up with America’s material resources, they will be challenging the normative commitment to open markets and liberal democracy that has defined the Western order. The substantive gap between the norms of the Western order and those that inform the domestic and foreign policies of rising powers has not gone unnoticed (Kupchan and Mount 2009). Nonetheless, many scholars have offered an illusory response: that the United States and its democratic allies should dedicate the twilight hours of their primacy to universalizing Western norms. According to G John Ikenberry (2008, 37, 25), ‘the United States’ global position may be weakening, but the international system the United States leads can remain the dominant order of the twenty-first century’. The West should ‘sink the roots of this order as deeply as possible’ to ensure that the world continues to play by its rules even as its material preponderance wanes. Such confidence in the universality of the Western order is, however, based on wishful thinking about the likely trajectory of ascending powers, which throughout history have sought to adjust the prevailing order in ways that advantage their own interests. Presuming that rising states will readily embrace Western norms is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous, promising to alienate emerging powers that will be pivotal to global stability in the years ahead (Gat 2007). Brooks and Wohlforth do not address this issue—presumably because they believe that US preponderance is so durable that they need not concern themselves with the normative orientations of rising powers. But facts on the ground suggest otherwise. China is, as of 2010, the world’s second largest economy, holds massive amounts of US debt, and is strengthening its economic and strategic presence in many quarters of the globe; the G-8 has given way to the G-20; the prime minister of democratic India has called for ‘new global “rules of the game”’ and the ‘reform and revitalization’ of international institutions (Mahbubane 2008, 235); the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have increased the voting weight of developing countries; and the United Nations Security Council is coming under growing pressure to enlarge the voices of emerging powers. All of these developments come at the expense of the influence and normative preferences of the United States and its Western allies. By the numbers, Brooks and Wohlforth are correct that unipolarity persists. But rising powers are already challenging the pecking order and guiding norms of the international system. If the next international system is to be characterized by norm-governed order rather than competitive anarchy, the West will have to make room for the competing visions of rising powers. A new order will have to be based on great-power consensus and toleration of political diversity rather than the normative hegemony of the West.
|
Kupchan, 2011 (Charles, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, June 2011, “The false promise of unipolarity: constraints on the exercise of American power,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 165-173)
|
They focus exclusively on the costs to the United States of its own failure to comply with the institutions and rules that Washington took the lead in crafting after the close of World War II the impressive economic performance and political staying power of regimes that practice non-democratic brands of capitalism—such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—call into question the durability of the normative order erected emerging powers will be challenging the normative commitment to open markets and liberal democracy many scholars have offered an illusory response: that the United States and its democratic allies should dedicate the twilight hours of their primacy to universalizing Western norms The West should ‘sink the roots of this order as deeply as possible’ to ensure that the world continues to play by its rules even as its material preponderance wanes however, based on wishful thinking Presuming that rising states will readily embrace Western norms is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous, promising to alienate emerging powers that will be pivotal to global stability China is, as of 2010, the world’s second largest economy the G-8 has given way to the G-20 the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have increased the voting weight of developing countries All of these developments come at the expense of the influence and normative preferences of the United States and its Western allies If the next international system is to be characterized by norm-governed order rather than competitive anarchy, the West will have to make room for the competing visions of rising powers. A new order will have to be based on great-power consensus and toleration of political diversity rather than the normative hegemony of the West
|
American cooperation with rising non-democratic countries is key to bolster international credibility and stability
| 3,827 | 115 | 1,754 | 604 | 14 | 280 | 0.023179 | 0.463576 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,832 |
The Princeton Project on National Security envisages a world of “liberty under law” in which the spread of democracy and open markets combines with the reform of international institutions to globalize the Western order. This vision is an attractive one. And it may well be that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other influential non-democracies will follow the West’s model of development and sign up to its notion of international order. As their middle classes grow in size and wealth, their material affluence could well prompt them to demand a greater political voice. But even if this is the case, the transition to liberal democracy will be a gradual one. For now, these countries are succeeding in consolidating capable authoritarian systems which, while not democratic, do enjoy considerable popular support. A poll conducted last year, for example, revealed that over 80 percent of China’s citizens are content with their county’s direction. According to both neoconservative and liberal proponents of a league of democracies—such as Robert Kagan and Ivo Daalder—autocracies should be effectively sidelined until they embrace democracy and take their place in the current international order. But the global distribution of power is changing far more quickly than the nature of governance in rising non-democracies. Economic, demographic, and military trends favor ascending authoritarian states, and these trends provide their leaders few incentives to gamble on political liberalization. The global financial crisis notwithstanding, growth rates in China should outpace those of mature democracies for years to come. And despite the recent drop in oil prices, Russia, the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, Iran, and other states rich in oil and gas reserves will continue to use their energy revenues to strengthen their domestic control and underwrite their challenge to the West’s vision of international order. As rising states seek influence commensurate with their wealth and power, they will recast, rather than embrace, the Western order. Maintaining a consensus on the terms of order is difficult enough among great powers that share a commitment to democracy at home. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of a democratic India, recently called for “new global ‘rules of the game’” and the “reform and revitalization” of international institutions. Discord exists even within the West; the United States and many of its European allies have of late parted ways over the role of international institutions, issues of international justice, and the rules determining when the use of force is necessary and legitimate. Such differences will be muted, but by no means eliminated, by new leadership in Washington. Divergent approaches to the conduct of statecraft tend to be even more pronounced among great powers that part company on matters of domestic governance. Washington and Moscow have locked horns of late over a long list of issues, including the enlargement of NATO, missile defense, the independence of Kosovo, and the conflict in Georgia. These differences stem not just from narrow conflicts of interest, but from contrasting conceptions of sovereignty, security, and other institutions of order. Political diversity among the world’s major players does not mean that a stable international order will prove unattainable. But it does mean that if a stable order is to emerge, its terms will have to be the product of consensus, not Western fiat. As Henry Kissinger cautions, “America will have to learn that world order depends on a structure that participants support because they helped bring it about.” Policymakers in Washington will have to rethink the foundations of U.S. statecraft and generate principles that can ground a more diverse, tolerant, and sustainable order.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2009, http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
The Princeton Project on National Security envisages a world of “liberty under law” in which the spread of democracy and open markets combines with the reform of international institutions to globalize the Western order it may well be that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other influential non-democracies will follow the West’s model of development and sign up to its notion of international order the transition to liberal democracy will be a gradual one. For now, these countries are succeeding in consolidating capable authoritarian systems which, while not democratic, do enjoy considerable popular support the global distribution of power is changing far more quickly than the nature of governance in rising non-democracies Economic, demographic, and military trends favor ascending authoritarian states, and these trends provide their leaders few incentives to gamble on political liberalization. As rising states seek influence commensurate with their wealth and power, they will recast, rather than embrace, the Western order Prime Minister of a democratic India, recently called for “new global ‘rules of the game’” and the “reform and revitalization” of international institutions . Divergent approaches to the conduct of statecraft tend to be even more pronounced among great powers that part company on matters of domestic governance. Washington and Moscow have locked horns of late over a long list of issues These differences stem not from contrasting conceptions of sovereignty, security, and other institutions of order. Political diversity among the world’s major players does mean that if a stable order is to emerge, its terms will have to be the product of consensus, not Western fiat America will have to learn that world order depends on a structure that participants support because they helped bring it about Policymakers have to generate principles that can ground a more diverse, tolerant, and sustainable order
|
The global distribution of power is shifting too fast for democratization to keep pace-the only chance to prevent transitional conflict is to embrace political diversity
| 3,791 | 169 | 1,939 | 585 | 25 | 296 | 0.042735 | 0.505983 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,833 |
Finally, it is important to touch on what may be the most contentious of issues between the United States and the emerging powers, namely human rights. On basic human rights issues, the key dynamic will be between the West and China. Neither domestic reality, nor good strategy, will allow the United States to ignore the human rights issues with China. But U.S. diplomacy on the issue should be cognizant of the relatively limited impact that outside pressure will have on China's evolution and the broader context to the relationship-a balance admirably struck by President Obama during President Hu Jintao's January 2011 visit to Washington. President Hu's acknowledgment that China had "issues" with human rights was a mild opening, but certainly one worth pursuing. More broadly, using human rights standards or issues of democracy promotion as a yardstick for cooperation will backfire. On both issues, emerging power behavior combines a defense of sovereignty (fundamental to their security) with a tradition of resisting western interventionism. Democratic India, Brazil and South Africa routinely vote with their NAM friends and against the West in the Human Rights Council. Moreover, while issues like "the responsibility to protect" are presumed to divide the "West from the rest," and do so in rhetoric, reality is more complex. India and South Africa spoke out strongly against NATO's action in Kosovo, which was supported by the Organization of Islamic Countries; France, Russia and Germany banded together to block U.S. action in Iraq. So, contentious, yes; neatly dividing the west from the rest, no. There is complexity not cleavage here. And an effort to use human rights or democratic criteria to drive hard cleavages in the international system would likely provoke more serious banding together by the emerging powers-against, not in favor of, our strategy. CONCLUSION America has rebounded from dips in its influence before. An oil price rise before economic downturn, a brewing crisis in Iran, a rising competitor, domestic divides and a Democratic president facing a resurgent right-welcome to 1978. Still, absent dramatic change, an economic shift to "the rest" will continue, and political influence will follow. If we foster cooperation where interests allow, and devote serious resources to global economic and energy diplomacy, we can balance the contentious dynamics of regional security and human rights. Preparing for crises by investing in management tools can help de-escalate them when they arrive.
|
Jones, 2011 (Bruce, Director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, director of the Managing Global Order project and a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at The Brookings Institution, senior external advisor for the World Bank's World Development Report 2011 on Conflict, Security, and Development, consulting professor at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, “Managing a Changing World,” Foreign Policy, March 14, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/14/building_the_new_world_order?page=full)
|
Neither domestic reality, nor good strategy, will allow the United States to ignore the human rights issues with China. But U.S. diplomacy on the issue should be cognizant of the relatively limited impact that outside pressure will have , using human rights standards or issues of democracy promotion as a yardstick for cooperation will backfire emerging power behavior combines a defense of sovereignty with a tradition of resisting western interventionism while issues like "the responsibility to protect" are presumed to divide the "West from the rest," and do so in rhetoric, reality is more complex France, Russia and Germany banded together to block U.S. action in Iraq an effort to use human rights or democratic criteria to drive hard cleavages in the international system would likely provoke more serious banding together by the emerging powers-against, not in favor of, our strategy. absent dramatic change, an economic shift to "the rest" will continue, and political influence will follow. If we foster cooperation where interests allow, and devote serious resources to global economic and energy diplomacy, we can balance the contentious dynamics of regional security and human rights. Preparing for crises by investing in management tools can help de-escalate them when they arrive.
|
Elevating democracy instead of accepting diverse regimes causes policy failure and backlash against every U.S. priority
| 2,533 | 120 | 1,297 | 393 | 16 | 201 | 0.040712 | 0.51145 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,834 |
As a starting point, responsible governance, rather than liberal democracy, should be adopted as the standard for determining which states are legitimate and in good standing—and thus stakeholders in the next order.— Put simply, a state would be in good international standing if it is dedicated to improving the lives of its citizens and enables them to pursue their aspirations in a manner broadly consistent with their preferences. States that fall short of this standard would be those that aim primarily to extract resources from their citizens, wantonly expose them to widespread privation and disease, or carry out or enable the systematic persecution or physical abuse of minorities. Beyond these strict prohibitions, however, societies should have considerable latitude in how they organize their institutions of government and go about meeting the needs of their citizens. As long as they are committed to improving the welfare and dignity of their people, states should enjoy the rights of good standing. It is true that equating good standing with responsible governance would be to acknowledge the legitimacy of states that do not adhere to Western conceptions of rights and liberties. But the globe's inescapable political diversity necessitates this relaxation in standards; different kinds of polities take different approaches to furthering the material and emotional needs of their peoples. In liberal states, citizens pursue their aspirations individually and privately. Other types of polities—China, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore, for example—put less emphasis on individual liberties in favor of a more collective approach to promoting the welfare of their citizens. Peoples with communitarian political cultures or a long history of deprivation may prefer a state-led brand of governance to a laissez-faire one that risks exposing them to political strife and poverty. Muslim societies may view a separated mosque and state as alien, and deem a fusion of the sacred and secular as not only acceptable, but obligatory. In patrimonial cultures, loyalty to tribe, clan, and family regularly take precedence over individual rights. To acknowledge that different kinds of polities can practice different forms of responsible governance is to respect diversity. In contrast, to compel other societies to embrace a certain form of government would be to impose a type of un- freedom. Clearing the way for a more inclusive global order entails recognizing that there is no single form of responsible government; the West does not have a monopoly on the political institutions and practices that enable countries to promote the welfare of their citizens. As long as other countries adhere to reasonable standards of responsible governance, the West should respect their political choices as a matter of national discretion and as a reflection of the intrinsic diversity of political life. These same standards should also apply to the conduct of foreign policy. States in good standing must safeguard not only the welfare of their own citizens, but also those of other countries. They must respect the sovereignty and political preferences of other states in good standing, and they must refrain from actions that compromise the security and well-being of other states and their citizens. Countries that commit aggression or engage in prohibited actions, such as systematically sponsoring terrorism or exporting weapons of mass destruction, should not be considered in good standing and should be denied the rights enjoyed by responsible states. Consistently abiding by these standards for inclusion—in rhetoric as well as in policy—would increase the number of stakeholders in the international system. It would also allow for the clear demarcation of those states that do not deserve such rights, and therefore facilitate the delegitimation and isolation of the world's most dangerous actors. The West would enjoy the backing of democracies and nondemocracies alike in taking a principled stand against regimes that prey on their own citizens—such as Sudan, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. So too would a broad coalition likely form to confront any state or non-state actor that consistently breaches international norms and commits acts of aggression against other states. With membership in the community of nations inclusively defined, a consensus might well emerge on how to deal with states that are predatory at home and abroad, providing legitimacy and widespread support for humanitarian and preventive intervention. So too would this recasting of the notion of legitimacy encourage the United States to moderate its over- zealous promotion of democracy. Rushing to the ballot box in places like Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan has done more harm than good. In societies that lack experience with constitutional rule, expedited transitions to democracy often produce civil war. In immature democracies, winners usually take all, leading to the majority's exploitation and persecution of the minority. It is worth keeping in mind that the West's own transition to democracy was long and bloody. Promoting responsible and responsive governance promises to yield better results than insisting on a hurried transition to democracy. To be sure, some will legitimately question whether the moral authority of liberal democracies would be tarnished by this more pragmatic approach. But the costs of moral compromise would be more than offset by the likely gains in international security. Moreover, the West need not abandon efforts to promote democracy as it embraces a broader definition of legitimacy. On the contrary, it should continue to speak out against repression and use political and economic incentives to encourage democratization. Citizens in democratic societies have every reason to be confident that liberal democracy, from both a moral and material perspective, is superior to the alternatives. Nonetheless, the spread of democracy should be one component of a long-term vision rather than serve as a defining objective. If the West is right about the strengths of liberal democracy, it will spread of its own accord as a consequence of its appeal and effectiveness. In the meantime, promoting responsible governance and respect for alternative approaches to providing it offers the most promise of advancing the international stability needed for democracy to demonstrate its virtues. This redefinition of international legitimacy does not violate Western values, but instead draws heavily on the West's own experience. Compromise, tolerance, and pluralism were all vital to the West's rise. Along the way, regimes of differing types lived side-by-side, more often than not respecting each other's political, religious, and ideological choices. The West has long celebrated and benefited from pluralism at home, and should do the same in approaching the rest of the world. As Steven Weber and Bruce Jentleson recognize, acknowledging the heterogeneity of political life "takes hold of the great diversity of human experience to turn it into a virtue not a vice, a source of new and recombinant ideas, not fear and hatred."1 It is also the case that focusing more on eradicating tyranny than spreading democracy is entirely consistent with the Western experience. As John Gaddis notes, "the objective of ending tyranny ... is as deeply rooted in American history as it is possible to imagine.... Spreading democracy suggests knowing the answer to how people should live their lives. Ending tyranny suggests freeing them to find their own answers." in short, the West's own liberal tradition recognizes the diverse pathways available for promoting human dignity and well-being. As the world's dominant power, the United States should take the lead in constructing this more pluralist approach to legitimacy. The United States will be better off if it gets ahead of the curve and helps craft a new order that enjoys support in most quarters of the globe than if it clings to an outmoded vision backed primarily by its traditional Western allies. Working with states that govern responsibly rather than haranguing those who fail to govern democratically would ultimately elevate America's moral authority and enhance its credibility abroad, important assets as it works with rising powers to manage the global turn.
|
Kupchan, 2012 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “No One's World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn”, Kindle edition (no page numbers)
|
responsible governance, rather than liberal democracy, should be adopted as the standard for determining which states are legitimate and in good standing—and thus stakeholders in the next order a state would be in good international standing if it is dedicated to improving the lives of its citizens Beyond these strict prohibitions, however, societies should have considerable latitude in how they organize their institutions of government and go about meeting the needs of their citizens As long as they are committed to improving the welfare and dignity of their people, states should enjoy the rights of good standing equating good standing with responsible governance would be to acknowledge the legitimacy of states that do not adhere to Western conceptions of rights and liberties the globe's inescapable political diversity necessitates this relaxation in standards Peoples with communitarian political cultures or a long history of deprivation may prefer a state-led brand of governance to a laissez-faire one To acknowledge that different kinds of polities can practice different forms of responsible governance is to respect diversity to compel other societies to embrace a certain form of government would be to impose a type of un- freedom Clearing the way for a more inclusive global order entails recognizing that there is no single form of responsible government; the West does not have a monopoly on the political institutions As long as other countries adhere to reasonable standards of responsible governance, the West should respect their political choices as a reflection of the intrinsic diversity of political life. They must respect the sovereignty and political preferences of other states in good standing, and they must refrain from actions that compromise the security and well-being of other states Countries that commit aggression or engage in prohibited actions, such as systematically sponsoring terrorism or exporting weapons of mass destruction, should not be considered in good standing and should be denied the rights enjoyed by responsible states . It would also allow for the clear demarcation of those states that do not deserve such rights, and therefore facilitate the delegitimation and isolation of the world's most dangerous actors. The West would enjoy the backing of democracies and nondemocracies a broad coalition likely form to confront any state or non-state actor that consistently breaches international norms and commits acts of aggression against other states expedited transitions to democracy often produce civil war. In immature democracies, winners usually take all, leading to the majority's exploitation and persecution of the minority. It is worth keeping in mind that the West's own transition to democracy was long and bloody. Promoting responsible and responsive governance promises to yield better results than insisting on a hurried transition to democracy the costs of moral compromise would be more than offset by the likely gains in international security it should continue to speak out against repression and use political and economic incentives to encourage democratization the spread of democracy should be one component of a long-term vision rather than serve as a defining objective. If the West is right about the strengths of liberal democracy, it will spread of its own accord as a consequence of its appeal and effectiveness promoting responsible governance and respect for alternative approaches to providing it offers the most promise of advancing the international stability needed for democracy to demonstrate its virtues. Compromise, tolerance, and pluralism were all vital to the West's rise. Along the way, regimes of differing types lived side-by-side The West has long celebrated and benefited from pluralism at home, and should do the same in approaching the rest of the world. , acknowledging the heterogeneity of political life "takes hold of the great diversity of human experience to turn it into a virtue not a vice, a source of new and recombinant ideas, not fear and hatred Spreading democracy suggests knowing the answer to how people should live their lives. Ending tyranny suggests freeing them to find their own answers , the United States should take the lead in constructing this more pluralist approach to legitimacy Working with states that govern responsibly rather than haranguing those who fail to govern democratically would ultimately elevate America's moral authority and enhance its credibility abroad, important assets as it works with rising powers to manage the global turn.
|
The plan signals U.S. acceptance of alternate forms of governance---key to global cooperation across regime type and U.S. credibility
| 8,358 | 134 | 4,589 | 1,287 | 19 | 707 | 0.014763 | 0.54934 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,835 |
The starting point for formulating the foundational principles of the next order is to select appropriate criteria for determining which are those states in good standing—and thus stakeholders in the new order. Membership in the “community of nations” should require that a state in good standing seek to improve the lives of its citizens in a manner consistent with their preferences, and in so doing, promote the autonomy of those citizens to pursue their aspirations. In a liberal polity, the state allows its citizens to pursue their aspirations individually and privately. However, other types of responsible polities put less emphasis on individual liberties and instead promote the welfare of their citizens through more collective and paternalistic means. The Autonomy Rule acknowledges that health, prosperity, security, and dignity represent the universal desires of all peoples, but it simultaneously recognizes that liberal democracy does not represent the only vehicle for furthering these objectives. The idea that government should be dedicated to improving the lives of its citizens is hardly foreign to the American experiment. Indeed, the Founding Fathers made clear that one of the defining purposes of union was to enable the state to enhance the welfare of its citizens. The American solution to attaining these ends was the compound republic. By endowing federal institutions with the power to govern while also limiting their authority through checks and balances, the citizenry could be protected against threats from without and from tyranny within. The compound republic would provide for the security and material needs of its citizens while leaving the states considerable discretion over social policy and the individual broad latitude for privacy and personal aspiration. Even within the West, however, there is disagreement about how best to construe this liberal tradition. Classical liberals, such as Friedrich Hayek, maintain that autonomy is best ensured by freedom from government action. This school of thought manifests itself in a strong libertarian tradition, which holds that minimal government most effectively allows citizens to determine their own destiny. In contrast, left-leaning liberals like Karl Polanyi and Amartya Sen recognize that deprivation in the material capabilities of people represents a major constraint on autonomy. Sen, for example, sees education, social welfare, and other government-sponsored programs as the best way to encourage autonomy; poverty represents a form of un-freedom that is at least as oppressive as tyranny. In short, there is no single political formula for promoting human autonomy. Clearing the way for a more inclusive global order entails recognizing that America’s brand of liberal democracy does not exhaust the modes of governance that satisfy the Autonomy Rule. Just as there is no universal form of democracy, there is no universal form of responsible government. Peoples with communitarian political cultures or a past of economic deprivation may prefer social democracy to a laissez-faire economy that risks again exposing them to instability, inequality, and poverty. A deeply religious society may view a separated church and state as alien, and deem secular education by itself insufficient to instill in children the values that community holds dear. A patrimonial culture may privilege clan or familial ties over individual rights. Put simply, the requirements of human autonomy vary for different peoples, and the threats to autonomy vary by circumstance. In some cases, personal autonomy requires negative protection—for example, against coercion—while in others it requires positive public effort—against privation, for instance. To acknowledge that autonomy takes different forms in different societies is to respect diversity; to push a certain form of government on other societies would be to impose a type of un-freedom. All societies have winners and losers, and minority populations often fare less well than the majority. But as long as a government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens in a way broadly commensurate with their aspirations, respecting the Autonomy Rule means treating that country as a member of international society in good standing. Of course, any country that perpetrates or tolerates genocide, enables or allows the systematic persecution and physical abuse of minorities, or exposes its citizens to widespread privation and disease will fall well short of meeting the Autonomy Rule. But beyond such obvious prohibitions, societies should have considerable latitude in how they organize their institutions of government. Implementation of the Autonomy Rule admittedly means including some states that, though they govern responsibly, do not safeguard the full political rights of all their citizens. However, such a rights-based approach to governance is unique to liberal democracies. Countries such as Singapore, China, and Russia maintain that forgoing full individual rights allows for alternative means of national progress and enhances personal welfare for the greatest number of their citizens. To treat these countries as states in good standing is not to condone such infringements on individual rights. It is instead to acknowledge the reality of political diversity and to recognize that no country or system has a monopoly on providing good governance.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2009, http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
The starting point for formulating the foundational principles of the next order is to select appropriate criteria for determining which are those states in good standing community of nations” should require that a state in good standing seek to improve the lives of its citizens other types of responsible polities put less emphasis on individual liberties and instead promote the welfare of their citizens through more collective and paternalistic means. The Autonomy Rule acknowledges that health, prosperity, security, and dignity represent the universal desires of all peoples, but it simultaneously recognizes that liberal democracy does not represent the only vehicle for furthering these objectives . Even within the West, however, there is disagreement about how best to construe this liberal tradition. Classical liberals, such as Hayek maintain that autonomy is best ensured by freedom from government action left-leaning liberals like Polanyi and Sen recognize that deprivation in the material capabilities of people represents a major constraint on autonomy there is no single political formula for promoting human autonomy. Clearing the way for a more inclusive global order entails recognizing that America’s brand of liberal democracy does not exhaust the modes of governance that satisfy the Autonomy Rule there is no universal form of responsible government. Peoples with communitarian political cultures or a past of economic deprivation may prefer social democracy to a laissez-faire economy the requirements of human autonomy vary for different peoples, and the threats to autonomy vary by circumstance To acknowledge that autonomy takes different forms in different societies is to respect diversity; to push a certain form of government on other societies would be to impose a type of un-freedom as long as a government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens in a way broadly commensurate with their aspirations, respecting the Autonomy Rule means treating that country as a member of international society in good standing societies should have considerable latitude in how they organize their institutions of government. Countries such as Singapore, China, and Russia maintain that forgoing full individual rights allows for alternative means of national progress and enhances personal welfare for the greatest number of their citizens It is to acknowledge the reality of political diversity and to recognize that no country or system has a monopoly on providing good governance.
|
Liberal democracy shouldn’t define state legitimacy---many cultures prefer a governance model that elevates communal concerns rather than political rights of individuals---the plan recognizes that liberal democracy doesn’t have a monopoly on legitimate governance
| 5,412 | 264 | 2,517 | 813 | 33 | 380 | 0.04059 | 0.467405 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,836 |
A New Policy to Cuba Since the early 1990s U.S. “proactive” policies have done more to stoke than reduce domestic tensions in Cuba, though we profess to seek a “peaceful transition.” Most U.S. legislators have supported pro-embargo Cuban-Americans even though Gallup polls have long shown that most Americans favor diplomatic relations with Havana and lifting the embargo. On balance, politicians don’t think Cuba policy is important enough to be worth stirring up the hornets in the still fairly militant and well-financed pro-embargo lobby. Not only have all presidential candidates including Obama supported the embargo, most have resisted even seriously discussing it. This U.S. commitment to a failed policy has given Washington a "special stake” in the island’s so-called “independent” sector whose goals appeal to Americans. But tragically, paraphrasing journalist Scotty Reston, Americans will do anything for these dissidents except listen to them. My talks with many in Cuba and abroad suggest that most oppose the embargo and three have co-authored articles with me saying so. If these dissidents come under focused government fire in the years ahead, many Americans will feel compelled to intervene even more directly—perhaps militarily—on their behalf. Two points stand out: Cuba is not the security threat that our current policy treats it as; and our sanctions do not advance the desirable political, economic, and humanitarian improvements that we say we seek on the island. The bottom line is that we must base our policy on national security interests and realities, not unattainable dreams, however noble those dreams may seem. During his second and final term, and after having drawn unprecedented electoral support as a Democrat from Cuban-Americans in Miami, President Obama is in a position to make serious reforms, if he has the will to do so. He might begin by resurrecting a 1998-99 proposal—then endorsed by former secretaries of state Kissinger and George Shultz, but killed by President Clinton—for convening a Presidential Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to seriously examine the pros and cons of the policy. It would certainly see the need for change and its findings would give Obama cover for action. Many significant changes can be made now without the support of Congress, though since 1996 the latter’s backing has been necessary to fully lift the embargo. Immediate reforms should include: securing the release of Alan Gross, the American contractor arrested in 2009 for doing his “proactive” U.S. government-funded job; ending provocative “proactive” programs; allowing more visits to Cuba by all Americans, not just largely Cuban-Americans; expanding trade beyond the foods and medicines now allowed; bringing our Cuba immigration policy into line with our policies toward immigrants from other countries; increasing discussions with Cuba’s political and military leaders on affairs of mutual interest; and looking objectively at the reforms under way today and deciding how Washington can promote change while defusing rather than stoking domestic conflict and tensions.
|
Ratliff, 2013 (William, research fellow and former curator of the Americas Collection at the Hoover Institution, he is also a research fellow of the Independent Institute, an expert on Latin America, China, and US foreign policy, “Cuba's Tortured Transition”, 1/30/2013, http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/1392810)
|
Since the early 1990s U.S. “proactive” policies have done more to stoke than reduce domestic tensions in Cuba Not only have all presidential candidates including Obama supported the embargo, most have resisted even seriously discussing it. This U.S. commitment to a failed policy has given Washington a "special stake Cuba is not the security threat that our current policy treats it as; and our sanctions do not advance the desirable political, economic, and humanitarian improvements that we say we seek on the island we must base our policy on national security interests and realities, not unattainable dreams, however noble those dreams may seem President Obama is in a position to make serious reforms, if he has the will to do so. It would certainly see the need for change and its findings would give Obama cover for action reforms should include ending provocative “proactive” programs allowing more visits to Cuba by all Americans, not just largely Cuban-Americans; expanding trade beyond the foods and medicines now allowed; bringing our Cuba immigration policy into line with our policies toward immigrants from other countries
|
And, the embargo is the symbol of America’s attempt to democratize- accepting political diversity now through Cuba is key to successful reform of American policy
| 3,108 | 161 | 1,139 | 475 | 25 | 181 | 0.052632 | 0.381053 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,837 |
Engagement’s opponents claim that pursuing rapprochement with a non-democratic adversary means abandoning hope that its government will change. On the contrary, doing business with autocracies has the potential to bring about a change of leadership through the backdoor – by weakening hardliners and empowering reformers. Engagement with Iran, for example, could undermine a government that relies on confrontation with the United States to rally popular support and disarm the opposition. Under such circumstances, political liberalization is »homegrown,« and thus more likely to prove durable. Belligerent governments have frequently been the victims of rapprochement. The power of Sweden’s aristocracy and military waned in step with the advance of rapprochement with Norway. The ancien regime’s militarism was of diminishing relevance and the advance of integration with Norway and other democracies strengthened Swedish liberals. The military juntas that governed Brazil and Argentina when reconciliation began in 1979 did not survive the onset of rapprochement. Hardliners in both countries were undermined by reconciliation, clearing the way for the ascent of liberalizing coalitions: Brazil and Argentina were democracies by 1985. In none of these cases was rapprochement the only factor that helped bring about a change of government, but the more benign strategic environment that accompanied reconciliation certainly strengthened the hand of reformers. Over the long run, working with recalcitrant autocrats may undermine them far more effectively than containment and confrontation.4.3 Diplomacy, Not Economic Interdependence, Is the Currency of Peace Third, and again contrary to conventional wisdom, diplomacy, not economic interdependence, is the currency of peace. In only one of the twenty historical cases examined in How Enemies Become Friends – the gradual unification of Germany between 1815 and 1871 – did economic integration clear the way for political integration. In all the other cases, only after political elites succeeded in taming strategic competition did the pacifying effects of economic interdependence make a major contribution to the onset of stable peace. Flows of trade and investment have consequences, but the diplomats must first lay the groundwork through negotiations and the practice of reciprocal restraint. From this perspective, only after the diplomats have resolved the bulk of the disputes at issue can economic integration between rivals – Japan and China, Palestinians and Israelis, Bosnia’s Serbs and Muslims – help consolidate rapprochement. In similar fashion, the international community can wield important political leverage by loosening economic sanctions on Iran, Syria, or Cuba. But the main benefit of such action would be the political signal it sends, not the purportedly pacifying effects of commercial integration. Growing economic ties can help lock in rapprochement, but only after a political settlement is at hand.
|
Kupchan, 2011 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Enmity into Amity: How Peace Breaks Out “, April 2011, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/07977.pdf)
|
Engagement’s opponents claim that pursuing rapprochement with a non-democratic adversary means abandoning hope On the contrary, doing business with autocracies has the potential to bring about a change of leadership through the backdoor Engagement could undermine a government that relies on confrontation with the United States to rally popular support Belligerent governments have frequently been the victims of rapprochement Hardliners in both countries were undermined by reconciliation, clearing the way for the ascent of liberalizing coalitions Over the long run, working with recalcitrant autocrats may undermine them far more effectively than containment and confrontation Diplomacy, Not Economic Interdependence, Is the Currency of Peace diplomacy, not economic interdependence, is the currency of peace In only one of the twenty historical cases examined did economic integration clear the way for political integration. In all the other cases, only after political elites succeeded in taming strategic competition did the pacifying effects of economic interdependence diplomats must first lay the groundwork through negotiations and the practice of reciprocal restraint the international community can wield important political leverage by loosening economic sanctions on Iran, Syria, or Cuba
|
Diplomatic relations with autocratic countries like Cuba are key to maintaining international peace
| 2,985 | 99 | 1,303 | 434 | 13 | 182 | 0.029954 | 0.419355 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,838 |
If one were to study the history of American sanctions empirically, he would conclude, quite reasonably, that they have failed. The embargo began in earnest in 1962 with the purpose forcing Cuba to liberalize and move away from Communism. As the Cuban Democracy Act, which codified the embargo in 1992, puts it, America will maintain its sanctions until Cuba moves towards “democratization and greater respect for human rights.” Sixty-one years of restricted trade and diplomatic relations with the world’s greatest economic, political, and military power, and Cuba has refused to change. It is both communist and repressive. Cuba is virtually the only nation left in Latin America where there is violent, state-sanctioned political repression. The state has a media-monopoly, restricts access to information, and subjects non-state journalists and bloggers to arbitrary, short-term arrest. The embargo has more than failed. If the purpose of the embargo is to help the Cuban people, it is self-defeating because it has made life worse for them. One example is food shortages. The state farms are terribly inefficient and some years produce only 20% of the food necessary for the Cuban people. Thus, Cuba must import a large quantity of its food. But because of the American embargo, imports are extremely expensive, making life unnecessarily difficult for the Cuban people. Such is the case with all embargos though. They rarely affect the people in power and instead, their weight is passed down to the everyday men and women, whom the sanctions are put in place to help. Sanctions, therefore, are not corrective but punitive, and punitive only towards the people. Why keep the sanctions? Some will argue that removing them will reward Cuban intransigence on democratization and human rights. But should we combat intransigence with obstinacy? Instead, the United States should change course and not only open up relations and trade with Cuba, but embrace the Cuban people. America must be careful to distinguish between the Cuban people and the Cuban state. It would be easy for the Cuban government to spin any change in American policy as a sign of approval. America, then, should explicitly explain that its shifted posture is the result of its desire to help the Cuban people. It aims to ease the strain on the food-market and bring in new technology, technology that the Cuban people can use to share information and protest the government. New relations with the United States will also catalyze and cultural/political shifts away from communism, and precipitate new ones. In other words, renewed relations with Cuba will 1) help the Cuban people, which in the process will 2) improve America’s standing, both in Cuba and Latin America, and 3) support democrats. I harbor no allusions that ending sanctions immediately topple communism in Cuba, but in the long run, it may turn out to be the needed silver bullet.
|
Inkeles, 2013 (Isaac, regular contributor to the Harvard International Review Blog, “On Cuba”, The Harvard International Review, 3/1/2013, http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/isaac-inkeles/on-cuba)
|
If one were to study the history of American sanctions empirically, he would conclude, quite reasonably, that they have failed The embargo began in earnest in 1962 with the purpose forcing Cuba to liberalize America will maintain its sanctions until Cuba moves towards “democratization Sixty-one years of restricted trade and diplomatic relations with the world’s greatest power and Cuba has refused to change The embargo has more than failed If the purpose of the embargo is to help the Cuban people, it is self-defeating But because of the American embargo, imports are extremely expensive, making life unnecessarily difficult for the Cuban people. Why keep the sanctions? , the United States should change course and not only open up relations and trade with Cuba, but embrace the Cuban people. New relations with the United States will also catalyze and cultural/political shifts away from communism, and precipitate new ones In other words, renewed relations with Cuba will 1) help the Cuban people, which in the process will 2) improve America’s standing and support democrats
|
The embargo’s attempt to forcefully democratize has failed-America must realize that only through broader cooperation with Cuba will democracy flourish
| 2,922 | 151 | 1,082 | 473 | 20 | 172 | 0.042283 | 0.363636 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,839 |
3. Advance U.S. interests through principled diplomacy. With the right team in place to manage U.S.-Cuban affairs, the next president should engage Cuba diplomatically and place the burden on the Castro government to act constructively. Although the Cuban government may be reluctant to embrace sweeping efforts to change the relationship with the United States, U.S. diplomats should engage frequently through already established channels to deal with counternarcotics, migration, and military issues. Reinvigorating dialogue through these regular, lower-level channels, which the Bush administration has allowed to atrophy, would set the stage for higher level discussions down the road. The United States could also float discreet proposals to gauge the reaction of the Cuban government in a better relationship. One easy place to begin is to offer to allow Cuban diplomats to travel freely while posted to Washington if Havana would agree to do the same for U.S. Foreign Service officers. More sensitive issues could also be discussed in hypothetical terms side-by-side, for example the willingness of the Cuban government to release dissidents from jail and the willingness of the United States to remove Cuba from its list of countries that support terrorism. The Cuban government, which has a history of spurning U.S. outreach, may not react quickly or favorably to diplomatic overtures. This year, the Cuban government initially rejected hurricane relief proposed not only by the United States but by the EU as well. ―Process in Cuba is slow,‖ according to a former British diplomat who served in Cuba, who adds, ―There is a huge depth of suspicion about everything.‖95 One Canadian official warns that, when negotiating with the Cuban government over normal development assistance, ―you need to roll with the punches. It can be frustrating.‖96 Given the checkered history of U.S.-Cuban relations, uncertainty surrounding Cuba‘s economy in the wake of recent hurricanes, and the government‘s resistance to sudden change, Havana may not be in a rush to engage vigorously with the United States. Pickering speculates that ―a dramatic shift would be resisted by Raúl, who wants to keep any changes gradual.‖97 Still, presidents from John F. Kennedy to Reagan have demonstrated a willingness to engage with the Cuban government even at times of immense tension. Great presidents recognize that talking to the United States‘ enemies is not appeasement. ―Part of [a diplomat‘s] job is to maintain contact with people you wouldn‘t want to invite to dinner,‖ advises Davidow.98 The United States should reengage to support its interests on issues such as migration and counternarcotics while laying the groundwork for more substantial discussions later. Even if a breakthrough is not possible today, reestablishing regular channels of communication will make gradual improvement more likely down the road.
|
Colvin, 2008 (Jake, fellow with the New Ideas Fund, a group that seeks new approaches and paradigms for U.S. national security and foreign policy. He is also Vice President for Global Trade Issues at the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) and oversees the Cuba initiative of USA*Engage, “The Case for a New Cuba Policy”, 12/23/2008, http://web.archive.org/web/20120904201743/http://www.newideasfund.org/proposals/Colvin%20-%20Cuba%20-%20Master.pdf)
|
With the right team in place to manage U.S.-Cuban affairs, the next president should engage Cuba diplomatically U.S. diplomats should engage frequently through already established channels The United States could also float discreet proposals to gauge the reaction of the Cuban government in a better relationship It can be frustrating Given the checkered history of U.S.-Cuban relations, uncertainty surrounding Cuba‘s economy in the wake of recent hurricanes, and the government‘s resistance to sudden change, Havana may not be in a rush Great presidents recognize that talking to the United States‘ enemies is not appeasement Part of [a diplomat‘s] job is to maintain contact with people you wouldn‘t want to invite to dinner The United States should reengage to support its interests on issues such as migration and counternarcotics reestablishing regular channels of communication will make gradual improvement more likely down the road
|
Engaging with Cuba diplomatically is key to prove the American commitment to working with politically diverse countries
| 2,905 | 119 | 941 | 445 | 17 | 142 | 0.038202 | 0.319101 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,840 |
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.
|
Boston Globe, 2013 (“Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too”, The Boston Globe, 2/9/2013, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html)
|
The communist government of the ruling Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship 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 is no longer monolithic Obama has more maneuvering room politically By depoliticizing the Cuba portfolio, the United States could then begin to lessen trade restrictions Direct relations would also further US national security and environmental interests as Cuba increasingly promotes offshore drilling and other maritime exploration, the United States must improve communication with Havana Menendez Menendez will need to be convinced that he can help Cubans more by resetting American policy
|
Now is key for an American reset of policy with Cuba
| 3,079 | 52 | 994 | 485 | 11 | 149 | 0.02268 | 0.307216 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,841 |
For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188 nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution, a result virtually unchanged from last year. Israel, heavily dependent on U.S. backing in the Middle East, and the tiny Pacific state of Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States in opposing the non-binding resolution in the 193-nation assembly. The Pacific states of the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. President Barack Obama further loosened curbs last year on U.S. travel and remittances to Cuba. He had said he was ready to change Cuba policy but was still waiting for signals from Havana, such as the release of political prisoners and guarantees of basic human rights. But Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo, and the imprisonment of a U.S. contractor in Cuba has halted the thaw in Cuban-U.S. relations. Havana's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the assembly that Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change. But he said the result had been disappointing. "The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of ... the embargo," he said. 'EXTERNAL SCAPEGOAT' Rodriguez said the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding that the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and political freedoms and comply with international human rights standards. "There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said.
|
Charbonneau, 2012 (Louis, Bureau Chief for the United Nations section of Reuters, “U.N. urges end to U.S. Cuba embargo for 21st year”, Reuters, 11/13/2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-cuba-embargo-un-idUSBRE8AC11820121113)
|
For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188 nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution Israel and Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo, and the imprisonment of a U.S. contractor in Cuba has halted the thaw Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change. But he said the result had been disappointing the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of ... the embargo the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and political freedoms There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold
|
Embargo decks American international credibility-UN votes prove
| 1,899 | 63 | 878 | 305 | 7 | 146 | 0.022951 | 0.478689 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,842 |
Employing these minimal and consistent standards for inclusion would not only increase the number of stakeholders in the international system, but also allow for a clear delineation of those states that do not deserve the rights of good standing. Washington would be able to take a resolute and principled stand against the few remaining predatory regimes—such as Sudan, North Korea, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe—that evince no apparent concern for the welfare of their citizens and expose them to brutality, famine, illiteracy, and systematic repression. The United States would also be able to isolate any state or non-state actor whose breach of international norms endangers regional or global security. Moreover, having affirmed the rights of all responsible states, Washington would be more likely to enjoy the backing of many of the world’s states—democracies and non-democracies alike—in confronting such predators. With membership in the community of nations well-defined, a great-power consensus might well emerge on how best to deal with predatory states, making humanitarian and preventive intervention a more realistic prospect. Honoring the Autonomy Rule would therefore legitimate a new and more inclusive order while de-legitimating and isolating the world’s most dangerous actors. Far from representing an abandonment of American ideals, this approach draws heavily on the foundational principles of America’s own experience to shape the parameters of a new international order. John Gaddis, a Yale historian, agrees that the United States should focus on eradicating tyranny rather than spreading democracy, observing that “the objective of ending tyranny…is as deeply rooted in American history as it is possible to imagine . . .Spreading democracy suggests knowing the answer to how people should live their lives. Ending tyranny suggests freeing them to find their own answers.” Moreover, as citizens in a pluralist society, Americans have a tradition of valuing the preservation of intellectual, cultural, racial, and religious difference. Celebrating pluralism not only ensures that the uniqueness of the individual will be valued; such tolerance also produces a vibrant society capable of bringing multiple perspectives to bear on common problems. These principles are equally applicable to international politics: There can be no good justification for the United States to celebrate pluralism at home but fail to do so abroad. Just as pluralism and tolerance help resolve some of the most difficult challenges of domestic governance, they should do the same for matters of international politics. As long as other countries adhere to the Autonomy Rule, the United States should respect their political preferences as a matter of national discretion and a reflection of the diversity that is intrinsic to political life.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Spring 2009, http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
Employing these minimal and consistent standards for inclusion would allow for a clear delineation of those states that do not deserve the rights of good standing Washington would be able to take a resolute and principled stand against the few remaining predatory regimes—such as Sudan, North Korea, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe—that evince no apparent concern for the welfare of their citizens and expose them to brutality, famine, illiteracy, and systematic repression The United States would also be able to isolate any state or non-state actor whose breach of international norms endangers regional or global security Washington would be more likely to enjoy the backing of many of the world’s states a great-power consensus might well emerge on how best to deal with predatory states, making humanitarian and preventive intervention a more realistic prospect Honoring the Autonomy Rule would therefore legitimate a new and more inclusive order while de-legitimating and isolating the world’s most dangerous actors a Yale historian agrees that the U S should focus on eradicating tyranny rather than spreading democrac Spreading democracy suggests knowing the answer to how people should live their lives. Ending tyranny suggests freeing them to find their own answers Celebrating pluralism not only ensures that the uniqueness of the individual will be valued; such tolerance also produces a vibrant society capable of bringing multiple perspectives to bear on common problems. These principles are equally applicable to international politics: the United States should respect their political preferences as a matter of national discretion and a reflection of the diversity that is intrinsic to political life
|
Cooperative great-power relations across regime type create a global check on conflict---enables the U.S to effectively isolate any state that threatens regional or global security and prevent international conflict
| 2,838 | 216 | 1,708 | 426 | 29 | 259 | 0.068075 | 0.607981 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,843 |
Enhancing the efficacy of international institutions will also require the devolution of greater responsibility and capability to regional actors. Deliberations at the global level are certainly required to set broad policies as well as coordinate responses to crises. But global governance has its limits; as the UN and G-20 have made clear, reaching consensus and taking effective action do not come easily. The diffusion of global power ultimately means the diffusion of international responsibility—from the Atlantic community of democracies to a broad array of states in good standing in all quarters of the globe. A new distribution of power necessitates a new distribution of responsibility, and effectively tackling many of today's challenges requires broad cooperation across region and regime type. Proposals that envisage the world-wide extension of Western institutions—such as a global NATO or a League of Democracies—are destined to fall woefully short. Important rising powers would be excluded and Western democracies have little appetite for such an expansion of commitments. Instead, Western institutions should serve as a model, not a substitute, for regional governance elsewhere. In the same way that NATO and the European Union helped bring security and prosperity to the Atlantic community, similar institutions can do the same in other areas. Regional devolution makes sense for a number of reasons. Countries closest to a crisis are those most likely to take effective action, if only for reasons of proximity. And with the West likely to be more focused on its own problems in the coming years, tapping the potential of other states increases the likelihood of timely diplomatic and military initiatives. Finally, the West's intervention beyond the Atlantic zone always invites resistance and resentment. In contrast, action by local states is more likely to enjoy support and legitimacy within the region in question. The devolution of authority to regional bodies has already been occurring, aided by the evolving capacities for governance and engagement at the regional level. The Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN), the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the defense union taking shape in South America (UNASUR)—as these and other regional organizations mature, they have considerable potential to assume greater responsibility for their respective regions.
|
Kupchan, 2012 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “No One's World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn”, Kindle edition (no page numbers)
|
Enhancing the efficacy of international institutions will also require the devolution of greater responsibility and capability to regional actors The diffusion of global power ultimately means the diffusion of international responsibility—from the Atlantic community of democracies to a broad array of states in good standing in all quarters of the globe effectively tackling many of today's challenges requires broad cooperation across region and regime type Proposals that envisage the world-wide extension of Western institutions—such as a global NATO or a League of Democracies—are destined to fall woefully short. Important rising powers would be excluded Regional devolution makes sense for a number of reasons. Countries closest to a crisis are those most likely to take effective action, if only for reasons of proximity tapping the potential of other states increases the likelihood of timely diplomatic and military initiatives action by local states is more likely to enjoy support and legitimacy within the region in question as these and other regional organizations mature, they have considerable potential to assume greater responsibility for their respective regions
|
Cooperation across regime type creates effective regional security architectures---causes a global backstop against conflict escalation
| 2,475 | 136 | 1,182 | 371 | 15 | 173 | 0.040431 | 0.466307 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,844 |
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
|
Tickell, 2008 (Oliver, Climate Researcher for The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, The Guardian, 8/11/2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
|
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean the end of living for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane is already under way It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
|
Warming causes multiple environmental problems – results in human extinction
| 2,461 | 76 | 1,041 | 411 | 10 | 168 | 0.024331 | 0.408759 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,845 |
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one percent, but notes, “We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but extremely low-probability.” [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the “probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it more likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact, society’s almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important. The cost of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War II’s fatalities were double or triple that number—chaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, “Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide.” Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact: “The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects.” [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.
|
Hellman, 2008 (Martin E., Emeritus Professor at Stanford, “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence”, Spring, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
|
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms . A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions The likelihood of such an attack is also significant In a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it more likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government terrorism is the trigger mechanism for a full-scale nuclear war society’s almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide civilization will be destroyed The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent nuclear explosions could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth even a limited nuclear exchange could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.
|
And – Nuclear terrorism causes extinction
| 6,717 | 41 | 1,107 | 1,112 | 6 | 182 | 0.005396 | 0.163669 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,846 |
The credibility of a state forms the basis of its reputation, which is little more than an impression of fundamental national character that serves as a guide for others trying to anticipate future actions.12 The loss of credibility can lead to reputations for weakness, fecklessness, and irresolution, which, the thinking goes, emboldens enemies and discourages the loyalty of allies. Credibility can be damaged in many ways, depending on the situation and the observer, but perhaps the surest is to fail to rise to a challenge or to pursue a goal with sufficient resolve. By doing so, a state may earn a reputation for irresolution, which can encourage more aggressive actions by revisionist powers.13 Threats made by a state without credibility may not be believed, inspiring the aggressor to press his advantage, which may lead to a challenge to an interest that is truly vital making a major war unavoidable. Thus the credibility imperative is also intimately related to the post-war American obsession with “appeasement,” which is of course a code word for a show of weakness that inadvertently encourages an aggressor.
|
Fettweis, 2004 (Christopher, Professor at the U.S. Army War College, December 2004, “Resolute Eagle or Paper Tiger? Credibility, Reputation and the War on Terror,” online: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p67147_index.html)
|
The credibility of a state forms the basis of its reputation The loss of credibility can lead to reputations for weakness and irresolution, which emboldens enemies and discourages allies the surest is to fail to rise to a challenge or to pursue a goal with sufficient resolve a state may earn a reputation for irresolution, which can encourage more aggressive actions by revisionist powers which may lead to a challenge to an interest that is truly vital making a major war unavoidable
|
Lack of international credibility makes great power war inevitable
| 1,125 | 66 | 485 | 181 | 9 | 82 | 0.049724 | 0.453039 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,847 |
America’s adherence to the Autonomy Rule by no means precludes the promotion of democracy as an objective of U.S. statecraft. Americans have every reason to remain confident that liberal democracy represents the best form of government, both morally and materially. Accordingly, the United States should continue to use political and economic incentives to encourage democratization. However, the spread of democracy should remain one component of a long-term vision, and not serve as a central objective defining America’s approach to international governance. If Americans are right about the merits of liberal democracy, it will spread of its own accord as a consequence of its superior attributes and performance. In the meantime, observation of the Autonomy Rule, humility about the strengths and weaknesses of the Western way, and respect for alternative systems of government offer the most promise of providing the favorable international conditions in which democracy will be able to demonstrate its virtues.
|
Kupchan and Mount, 2009 (Charles, professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adam, doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, Spring 2009, “The Autonomy Rule,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, online: http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/12/Kupchan.pdf)
|
America’s adherence to the Autonomy Rule by no means precludes the promotion of democracy Americans have every reason to remain confident that liberal democracy represents the best form of government the spread of democracy should remain one component of a long-term vision, and not serve as a central objective defining America’s approach to international governance If Americans are right about the merits of liberal democracy, it will spread of its own accord . In the meantime observation of the Autonomy Rule, humility about the strengths and weaknesses of the Western way, and respect for alternative systems of government offer the most promise of providing the favorable international conditions
|
We don’t crush all hope for democratization-pluralistic respect for other governing models allows it to spread on its own accord instead of by US force
| 1,017 | 151 | 703 | 152 | 25 | 108 | 0.164474 | 0.710526 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,848 |
China's GDP will catch up with America's over the course of the next decade. The World Bank predicts that the dollar, euro, and China's renminbi will become co-equals in a "multi-currency" monetary system by 2025. Goldman Sachs expects the collective GDP of the top four developing countries -- Brazil, China, India, and Russia -- to match that of the G-7 countries by 2032. The United States will no doubt exit the current slump and bounce back economically in the years ahead. Nonetheless, a more level global playing field is inevitable. To be sure, America's military superiority will remain second to none for decades to come. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made amply clear, though, military primacy hardly ensures effective influence. And with the U.S. defense budget poised to shrink in the service of restoring the country's fiscal health, the United States will have to pick its fights carefully. Shrewd and judicious statecraft will be at least as important as raw power in ensuring the country's security. To acknowledge the need for the United States to adjust to prospective shifts in the global distribution of power is not, as Duke University professor Bruce Jentleson recently pointed out in Democracy, to be a declinist or a pessimist. It is to be a realist. And safely guiding the United States through this coming transition requires seeing the world as it is rather than retreating toward the illusory comfort of denial. Adjusting to the rise of the rest requires, for starters, making more room at the table for newcomers. That process is already well under way. The G-20 has supplanted the G-8, widening the circle for global consultations. In the aftermath of reforms adopted in 2010, developing countries now have enhanced weight at the World Bank and IMF. The enlargement of the U.N. Security Council, though currently bogged down in wrangling, is also in the offing. But making international institutions more representative is the easy part. More challenging will be managing the ideological diversity that will accompany the coming realignment in global power. Precisely because the United States is an exceptional nation, its version of liberal democracy may well prove to be the exception, not the rule. In China, Russia, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf, state-led brands of capitalism are holding their own -- and may well do so for the foreseeable future. The Arab Spring could finally bring democratic rule to at least some countries in the Middle East, but it is also breeding political Islam; democratization should not be mistaken for Westernization. Even emerging powers that are already democracies, such as India, Brazil, and Turkey, are charting their own paths. They regularly break with the United States and Europe on trade, Middle East diplomacy, military intervention, the environment, and other issues, preferring to side with other ascending states, whether democratic or not. Romney's paeans to American power are no excuse for his silence on how he plans to manage these complexities. Promoting international stability will grow more demanding as rising powers bring to the table their differing conceptions of order and governance. The United States has a key role to play in managing such diversity and channeling it toward cooperative ends. Overheated proclamations of American preeminence, however, will do more harm than good. If a new, consensual international order is to emerge, rising powers must be treated as stakeholders in that order, not merely as objects of American power. Shepherding the transition to this more pluralistic world is arguably the defining challenge facing U.S. statecraft in the years ahead. Romney appears ready to pave over this challenge by denying that such change is afoot and attempting to portray Obama's policies as "an eloquently justified surrender of world leadership." Obama should welcome this debate and refuse to let his opponents hide behind the veil of American exceptionalism. Democrats no longer need to feel vulnerable on national security; Obama has demonstrated smarts and strength on many issues, including the degradation of al Qaeda, the pivot to Asia, and the isolation of Iran. He understands that agile, firm diplomacy backed by American power will do much more for the United States than congratulatory talk of American primacy. A smarter, more selective, and less costly U.S. role in the world would not only help the United States get its own house in order, but also give rising powers the wider berth they seek. And good policy would also be good politics; Americans are keen to share with others the burdens and responsibilities of international engagement. The world desperately needs a brand of U.S. leadership that focuses not on ruling the roost, but on guiding a more diverse and unwieldy globe to consensus and cooperation.
|
Kupchan, 2012 (Charles, Professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and Whitney Shepardson senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Sorry, Mitt: It Won't Be an American Century,” Foreign Policy, February 6, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/06/it_won_t_be_an_american_century?page=full)
|
China's GDP will catch up with America's the collective GDP of the top four developing countries -- Brazil, China, India, and Russia -- to match that of the G-7 countries by 2032 a more level global playing field is inevitable military primacy hardly ensures effective influence. And with the U.S. defense budget poised to shrink in the service of restoring the country's fiscal health, the United States will have to pick its fights carefull It is to be a realist safely guiding the United States through this coming transition requires seeing the world as it is rather than retreating toward the illusory comfort of denial making more room at the table for newcomers managing the ideological diversity that will accompany the coming realignment in global power Precisely because the United States is an exceptional nation, its version of liberal democracy may well prove to be the exception, not the rule In China, Russia, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf, state-led brands of capitalism are holding their own -- and may well do so for the foreseeable future democratization should not be mistaken for Westernization. Promoting international stability will grow more demanding as rising powers bring to the table their differing conceptions of order and governance The United States has a key role to play in managing such diversity and channeling it toward cooperative ends rising powers must be treated as stakeholders in that order, not merely as objects of American power Obama has demonstrated smarts and strength on many issues, including the degradation of al Qaeda, the pivot to Asia, and the isolation of Iran. He understands that agile, firm diplomacy backed by American power will do much more for the United States than congratulatory talk of American primacy good policy would also be good politics; Americans are keen to share with others the burdens and responsibilities of international engagement. The world desperately needs a brand of U.S. leadership that focuses not on ruling the roost, but on guiding a more diverse and unwieldy globe to consensus and cooperation
|
Attempts to revive American primacy alienate rising powers by signaling the U.S. won’t treat them as equal stakeholders
| 4,863 | 119 | 2,093 | 783 | 18 | 340 | 0.022989 | 0.434227 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,849 |
Latin America, particularly South America, has experienced unprecedented political change in the past 15 years said officials who discussed the issue during a briefing held by the Center for Economic Policy and Research. The briefing analyzed how the Obama administration has responded to the region’s leftward shifting of political dynamics. In the past, during the Bush administration, efforts were made to isolate and suppress left-leaning political movements in Latin America, said the officials. When President George W. Bush attended the Summit of the Americas in Argentina, his lecture was received with protests against his administration’s polices. When President Barak Obama attended the Summit in Columbia, he spoke about the need for “equal partnerships” and “a new chapter of engagement” with the countries that make up Latin America. Leaders such as President Hugo Chavez had a new sense of hope instilled after President Obama’s remarks, said CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot. “When Latin America’s left presidents watched the campaign of Barack Obama for president in 2008, they thought that they might finally see a U.S. president who would change Washington’s foreign policy in the region,” said Weisbrot. However, panelists claimed that up to this point in time, little has been done to improve U.S.-Latin America relations. “The Obama administration, like that of President Bush, does not accept that the region has changed, Weisbrot stated. “That goal is to get rid of all of the left-of-center governments, partly because they tend to be more independent from Washington.”
|
Lehmann, 5/30 [5/30/13, Catalina Lehmann is a reporter for Talk News Radio Service, “Officials: Obama Has Yet To Improve U.S.-Latin America Relations”, http://www.talkradionews.com/us/2013/05/30/officials-obama-has-yet-to-improve-u-s-latin-america-relations.html#.Udnf9jvqn80]
|
Latin America, particularly South America, has experienced unprecedented political change said officials who discussed the issue during a briefing held by the Center for Economic Policy and Research In the past, during the Bush administration, efforts were made to isolate and suppress left-leaning political movements in Latin America, said the officials When President Barak Obama attended the Summit in Columbia, he spoke about the need for “equal partnerships” and “a new chapter of engagement” with the countries that make up Latin America. Leaders such as President Hugo Chavez had a new sense of hope instilled after President Obama’s remarks they thought that they might finally see a U.S. president who would change Washington’s foreign policy in the region,” However, panelists claimed that up to this point in time, little has been done to improve U.S.-Latin America relations The Obama administration, like that of President Bush, does not accept that the region has changed That goal is to get rid of all of the left-of-center governments, partly because they tend to be more independent from Washington
|
US-Latin American Relations are low
| 1,592 | 35 | 1,116 | 244 | 5 | 175 | 0.020492 | 0.717213 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,850 |
FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, thepostwar treaty that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America. Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity. Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress. An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas. I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century. Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations. Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.” Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an alternative. At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.” Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime. After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero. And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive? The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help. Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments. If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
|
White, ’13 [3/7/13, Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States ambassador to Paraguay from 1977 to 1979 and to El Salvador from 1980 to 1981, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba”, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all]
|
FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with Latin America. Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help. Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
|
Failing to lift the embargo now dooms relations forever
| 8,445 | 55 | 1,899 | 1,340 | 9 | 301 | 0.006716 | 0.224627 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,851 |
The link between carbon-intensive activities and changes in the world’s climate is now well established, and the consequences will be felt across the hemisphere. According to figure 2, if current human activity remains unchanged, the hemisphere will likely suffer from a variety of ecological shocks, including declines in agricultural yields, water shortages, the loss of animal and plant species, and more frequent and destructive storms in the Caribbean Basin. These extreme weather events could bring devastation to Central America, the Caribbean, and the southeastern United States, imposing a heavy human and material toll. As we know from recent storms, the costs of replacing homes, businesses, and infrastructure—along with the higher costs of energy if refineries and offshore rigs are damaged—will be vast. Hemispheric Solutions Addressing the challenge of energy security will require making energy consumption more efficient and developing new energy sources, whereas addressing the challenge of climate change will require finding ways to control carbon emissions, helping the world shift away from carbon-intensive energy generation, and adapting to some aspects of changing ecosystems. Potential solutions to these problems exist in the Americas, but mobilizing them will require a sustained hemispheric partnership. Latin America has enormous potential to help meet the world’s growing thirst for energy, both in terms of hydrocarbons and alternative fuels. Latin America has about 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Venezuela accounts for most of these, though Brazil’s oil reserves could increase from 12 to 70 billon barrels if recent discoveries can be developed. Bolivia is an important producer of natural gas, Mexico has great potential in solar energy generation, and several countries in the region could potentially produce much more hydroelectric power. Brazil is a world leader in sugarcane-based ethanol production, and the United States is a leader in corn-based ethanol (figure 3). Solar and wind power, particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, remain underdeveloped. To expand the hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be required. Major investments in oil productionespecially deep offshore), refining, and distribution will be needed to achieve the region’s potential. Developing the Tupi project in Brazil alone will cost $70–240 billion. Liquefied natural gas will become an important source of energy, but not before major investments are made in infrastructure to support liquefaction, regasification, transport, and security. U.S. and Canadian electricity networks, which are already highly integrated, can be further integrated with Mexico’s. Mexico also plans to connect its grid to those of Guatemala and Belize, eventually creating an integrated power market in Central America. Power integration in South America will demand even larger investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and does not require fossil fuel imports. However, efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets face a variety of obstacles. Energy nationalism has led to disruptive disputes over pricing and ownership. Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. The security of the energy infrastructure, especially pipelines, remains a concern in Mexico and parts of South America. Gas, oil, and electricity subsidies distort patterns of production and consumption, and they are triggering protectionist behavior elsewhere. Technology on renewables remains underdeveloped, and research in this area can be better centralized and disseminated. Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among hemispheric partners. In addition to developing carbon-neutral sources of energy, the Western Hemisphere has other roles to play in combating climate change. The LAC region currently accounts for about 5 percent of annual global carbon emissions, and emissions per capita are still relatively low compared with other regions. However, minimizing the LAC region’s future carbon footprint will require new policies. Also, deforestation globally accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The Amazon River Basin contains one of the world’s three most important rainforests, whose protection can therefore very significantly contribute to combating climate change. Brazil is pioneering the use of information technology to lessen deforestation in the Amazon.
|
Zedillo et al, ‘8 [2008, Ernesto Zedillo Commission co-chair; Former President of Mexico Thomas R. Pickering Commission co-chair; Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Memb e r s o f the Par t n e r s h i p for t h e Ame r i cas Commi ssi o n Mauricio Cárdenas Director of the Commission; Senior Fellow and Director, Latin America Initiative, Brookings Leonardo Martinez-Diaz Deputy Director of the Commission; Political Economy Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings , “Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission”, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20partnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf]
|
The link between carbon-intensive activities and changes in the world’s climate is now well established, and the consequences will be felt across the hemisphere. These extreme weather events could bring devastation to Central America, the Caribbean, and the southeastern United States, imposing a heavy human and material toll. the challenge of energy security will require making energy consumption more efficient and developing new energy sources, whereas addressing the challenge of climate change will require finding ways to control carbon emissions, helping the world shift away from carbon-intensive energy generation, and adapting to some aspects of changing ecosystems. Potential solutions to these problems exist in the Americas, but mobilizing them will require a sustained hemispheric partnership. Latin America has enormous potential to help meet the world’s growing thirst for energy, both in terms of hydrocarbons and alternative fuels. , Mexico has great potential in solar energy generation, and several countries in the region could potentially produce much more hydroelectric power. Brazil is a world leader in sugarcane-based ethanol production, and the United States is a leader in corn-based ethanol (figure 3). Solar and wind power, particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, remain underdeveloped. To expand the hemisphere’s energy capacity, massive infrastructure investments will be required. Major investments in oil productionespecially deep offshore), refining, and distribution will be needed to achieve the region’s potential. Power integration in South America will demand even larger investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. Finally, reliance on nuclear power may grow because it is carbon free and does not require fossil fuel imports. However, efforts to expand energy capacity and integrate hemispheric energy markets face a variety of obstacles Tensions and mistrust in South America have hindered regional cooperation and investment, particularly on natural gas. Overcoming these obstacles will require high levels of cooperation among hemispheric partner In addition to developing carbon-neutral sources of energy, the Western Hemisphere has other roles to play in combating climate change Also, deforestation globally accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The Amazon River Basin contains one of the world’s three most important rainforests, whose protection can therefore very significantly contribute to combating climate change. Brazil is pioneering the use of information technology to lessen deforestation in the Amazon.
|
Latin American relations are key to solving warming, amazon deforestation and promoting alternative energy production
| 4,636 | 117 | 2,605 | 666 | 15 | 370 | 0.022523 | 0.555556 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,852 |
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
|
Tickell 08 – (Oliver Tickell is an environmental Researcher. He is the founder of the Kyoto2 climate initiative, a researcher of the Oxford Climate Associates and specialized in international climate policy. Published August 11th, 2008 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
|
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry told the Guardian last week. the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean the end of living and the beginning of survival . Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable sea level rises of 80 metres All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and farmland Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would die Watson's call was supported by King Director of the School of the Environment at Oxford] who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise we would see a runaway increase climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane captured under melting permafrost is already under way To see how far this process could go, look to the Palaeocene Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
|
Climate Change causes Extinction
| 2,682 | 32 | 1,627 | 444 | 4 | 273 | 0.009009 | 0.614865 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,853 |
Since he took office, U.S. President Barack Obama has articulated a policy toward Latin America that is centered on the idea of partnership. As he said last April, there would be “no senior or junior partner to this new engagement.” The United States, in other words, would be but one actor on the regional stage, not its director. But recent crises -- from the coup in Honduras to simmering tensions in the Andes -- have revealed a fundamental weakness in the Obama administration’s nascent Latin America policy. Without strong U.S. leadership, partnership in the Americas risks inertia or, even worse, an escalation of tensions on many of the hemisphere’s critical issues, such as transnational crime, democracy, and security. Although some countries -- including Brazil and Chile -- have been willing to take on diplomatic responsibilities commensurate with their economic status, they remain averse to conflict with neighbors, even to the point of willfully downplaying existing disagreements. Such an approach may have served Latin American governments well in the past, when a unified front helped to push issues such as debt relief and alternative thinking on antinarcotics policy. But the failure of any one country to assume a larger regional profile – especially with regards to protecting norms and security -- has allowed problems to fester.
|
Sabatini and Marczak, ’10 [January 2010, As Senior Director of Policy, Christopher Sabatini oversees the Americas Society and Council of the Americas’ (AS/COA) research and publishing programs. In his capacity at the AS/COA, he chairs the organizations’ working group on rule of law which recently published a report on rule of law in the hemisphere titled Rule of Law, Economic Growth and Prosperity, which in 2008 appeared in Spanish. Dr. Sabatini also chairs the AS/COA’s Cuba Working Group. In April 2007, Dr. Sabatini created and launched the AS/COA’s policy journal, Americas Quarterly (AQ). He is now the Editor-in-Chief of AQ and oversees the AQ website (www.americasquarterly.org) on which he has a regular blog on policy in the Americas, Jason Marczak is director of policy at Americas Society and Council of the Americas and senior editor of the AS/COA policy journal Americas Quarterly, “Obama’s Tango, Restoring U.S. Leadership in Latin America”, http://www.unc.edu/world/2010Seminars/LANC%20reading%202.pdf]
|
Since he took office, U.S. President Barack Obama has articulated a policy toward Latin America that is centered on the idea of partnership The United States, in other words, would be but one actor on the regional stage, not its director. But recent crises have revealed a fundamental weakness in the Obama administration’s nascent Latin America policy. Without strong U.S. leadership, partnership in the Americas risks inertia or, even worse, an escalation of tensions on many of the hemisphere’s critical issues, such as transnational crime, democracy, and security. Although some countrie have been willing to take on diplomatic responsibilities commensurate with their economic status, they remain averse to conflict with neighbors, even to the point of willfully downplaying existing disagreement But the failure of any one country to assume a larger regional profile – especially with regards to protecting norms and security -- has allowed problems to fester.
|
Strong Latin American Relations is key to stop escalation in the region and solve international security and democracy
| 1,353 | 118 | 966 | 215 | 18 | 148 | 0.083721 | 0.688372 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,854 |
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region – which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on – were linked to the prospect of explosive events occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that in a worst case scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important hegemonic role in the international arena – a concern expressed by the director of research for Canada’s Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the next chapter.
|
Rochlin, ’94 [1994, James Francis Rochlin is Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College, “Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America,” p. 130-131]
|
. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region Analysts at the time worried that in a worst case scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important hegemonic role in the international arena was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war
|
Latin America instability causes extinction
| 1,560 | 43 | 996 | 240 | 5 | 151 | 0.020833 | 0.629167 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,855 |
The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports.¶ Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
|
Fauriol & Weintraub 95 – Georges Fauriol, director of the CSIS Americas Program, and Sidney Weintraub, the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS and the Dean Rusk Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, Summer 1995, “U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone,” The Washington Quarterly, lexis
|
democracy carries much force in the hemisphere these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization democratization, and sustainable development is generally accepted in the hemisphere All three are themes expounded widely by the U S but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world
|
Latin American democracy’s a key model for democracy globally
| 1,443 | 62 | 483 | 230 | 9 | 75 | 0.03913 | 0.326087 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,856 |
Despite their disagreements and dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in the region, most governments in Latin America want to strengthen their relations with Washington. But the Bush administration has demonstrated neither the determination nor the capability to pursue policies in the Americas that would mobilize the support of the other nations of the hemisphere. Latin American countries, divided among themselves, are by no means clamoring for a renewal of hemispheric cooperation. Chávez's antics at the Summit of the Americas in November 2005 obscured the real tragedies of the gathering -- that is, how little the leaders accomplished, how badly the hemispheric agenda has unraveled, and how deeply divided the countries of the Americas are. Despite enthusiasm in the region for economic partnership, Latin Americans' fundamental ambivalence toward the United States' foreign policies has forcefully reemerged. The costs of this impasse may be high for both the United States and Latin America. Another financial crisis in Argentina or Brazil could have global ramifications. So would a political confrontation in oil-rich Venezuela and or an intensification of the armed conflict in Colombia. Greater regional integration and political cooperation could benefit all the countries of the Western Hemisphere, as they have in Europe. But the United States and Latin America have demonstrated neither the will nor the ability to travel that road together.
|
Hakim, ’06 [January/February 2006, Peter Hakim is the President of the Inter-American Dialogue, “Is Washington Losing Latin America?”, http://www.chileconsult.com/Is_Washington_Losing_Latin_America.pdf]
|
espite their disagreements and dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in the region, most governments in Latin America want to strengthen their relations with Washington. But the administration has demonstrated neither the determination nor the capability to pursue policies in the Americas that would mobilize the support of the other nations of the hemisphere. Another financial crisis in Argentina or Brazil could have global ramifications. So would a political confrontation in oil-rich Venezuela and or an intensification of the armed conflict in Colombia. Greater regional integration and political cooperation could benefit all the countries of the Western Hemisphere, as they have in Europe. But the United States and Latin America have demonstrated neither the will nor the ability to travel that road together.
|
Relations are key to solving economic collapse and Colombian conflict
| 1,456 | 69 | 814 | 219 | 10 | 121 | 0.045662 | 0.552511 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,857 |
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
|
Harris and Burrows, ‘09 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]
|
history may be more instructive than ever the Great Depression lessons include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies and the sustainability of multilateral institutions There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. the potential for greater conflict could grow in a constantly volatile economic environment Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. Terrorist groups will become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would be the Middle East worries could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions conflict could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty place focus on preemption leading to escalating crises. conflict over resources, could reemerge particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, essential for survival of their regime If fiscal stimulus focus for countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves With water becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
|
Global economic decline leads to miscalculation and crisis escalation—escalates
| 4,677 | 79 | 2,009 | 697 | 9 | 291 | 0.012912 | 0.417504 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,858 |
It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America's "backyard"; on the contrary, the continent has arguably never been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well. It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his "global war on terror." His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure. It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America's sway.
|
Ben-Ami, ‘6/18 [6/18/13, Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli diplomat, politician and historian, “Is US losing Latin America?”, http://www.timesofoman.com/Columns/Article-1173.aspx]
|
It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America No longer is the region regarded as America's "backyard"; on the contrary, the continent has arguably never been so united and independent It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America's sway
|
US is losing influence in Latin America- the embargo hurts relations
| 1,252 | 68 | 635 | 220 | 11 | 111 | 0.05 | 0.504545 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,859 |
My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many different kinds of groups in Havana, community projects, senior citizens, a health clinic, youth programs, artist and recording facilities, musical ensembles, historic sites such as Revolution Square and the Ernest Hemingway house and an environmental training facility, and not once did we hear anger toward the United States or the American people.What we heard was puzzlement about the embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident that there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing.Today, there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is also a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our policy. What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.
|
Trani, 6/23 [6/23/13, Eugene P. Trani is president emeritus and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, “Trani: End the embargo on Cuba”, http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9-000dffff8ce7.html]
|
My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many different kinds of groups in Havana and not once did we hear anger toward the United States or the American people. Today, there seem to be both humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. a major diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our policy. What a positive statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for the United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba We would be taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.
|
Removing the embargo sends strong signal to the rest of Latin America- now is the key time
| 1,461 | 90 | 897 | 237 | 17 | 152 | 0.07173 | 0.64135 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,860 |
The geopolitical context in Latin America provides another reason the U.S. government should make a serious shift on Cuba. For five years now, Obama has ignored Latin America's unanimous disapproval of Washington's position on Cuba. Rather than perpetuate Havana's diplomatic isolation, U.S. policy embodies the imperial pretensions of a bygone era, contributing to Washington's own marginalization. Virtually all countries in the region have refused to attend another Summit of the Americas meeting if Cuba is not at the table. Cuba, in turn, currently chairs the new Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which excludes Washington. The Obama administration has begun laying out what could become a serious second-term agenda for Latin America focused on energy, jobs, social inclusion, and deepening integration in the Americas. But the symbolism of Cuba across the region is such that the White House can definitively lead U.S.–Latin American relations out of the Cold War and into the twenty-first century only by shifting its Cuba policy. To make such a shift, however, Washington must move past its assumption that Havana prefers an adversarial relationship with the United States. Raúl Castro has shown that he is not his brother and has availed himself of numerous channels, public and private, to communicate to Washington that he is ready to talk. This does not mean that he or his successors are prepared to compromise on Cuba's internal politics; indeed, what Castro is willing to put on the table remains unclear. But his government's decisions to release more than 120 political prisoners in 2010 and 2011 and allow a number of dissident bloggers and activists to travel abroad this year were presumably meant to help set the stage for potential talks with the United States. Meanwhile, the death of Hugo Chávez, the former Venezuelan president, and the narrow margin in the election of his successor, Nicolás Maduro, have made it clear that Havana has reasons of its own to chart a path forward with the United States. In the last decade or so, Cuba came to depend on Venezuela for large supplies of subsidized oil, in exchange for a sizable brigade of Cuban doctors staffing the Chávez government's social programs. Political uncertainty in Caracas offers a potent reminder of the hazards of relying too heavily on any one partner. Havana is already beginning to branch out. In addition to financing the refurbishing of Mariel Harbor, the Brazilians have extended a line of credit to renovate and expand five airports across the island and have recently signed a deal to hire 6,000 Cuban doctors to fill shortages in Brazil's rural health coverage. Even so, in the long run, the United States remains a vital natural market for Cuban products and services. Of course, as the 1990s proved, even a huge financial setback may not be enough to drive Havana to Washington's door. Half a century of U.S. economic warfare has conditioned Cuban bureaucrats and party cadres to link openness at home or toward the United States with a threat to Cuba's independence. Some hard-liners might prefer muddling through with the status quo to the uncertainty that could come from a wider opening of their country.
|
Sweig, ’13 [July/August 2013, Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, “Cuba After Communism The Economic Reforms That Are Transforming the Island”, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991]
|
The geopolitical context in Latin America provides another reason the U.S. government should make a serious shift on Cuba. For five years now, Obama has ignored Latin America's unanimous disapproval of Washington's position on Cuba U.S. policy embodies the imperial pretensions of a bygone era, contributing to Washington's own marginalization. Virtually all countries in the region have refused to attend another Summit of the Americas meeting if Cuba is not at the table The Obama administration has begun laying out what could become a serious second-term agenda for Latin America focused on energy, jobs, social inclusion, and deepening integration in the Americas. But the symbolism of Cuba across the region is such that the White House can definitively lead U.S.–Latin American relations out of the Cold War and into the twenty-first century only by shifting its Cuba policy. Washington must move past its assumption that Havana prefers an adversarial relationship with the United States. Raúl Castro has shown that he is not his brother and has availed himself of numerous channels, public and private, to communicate to Washington that he is ready to talk But his government's decisions to release more than 120 political prisoners in 2010 and 2011 and allow a number of dissident bloggers and activists to travel abroad this year were presumably meant to help set the stage for potential talks with the United States. Meanwhile, the death of Hugo Chávez, , have made it clear that Havana has reasons of its own to chart a path forward with the United States. Cuba came to depend on Venezuela Political uncertainty in Caracas offers a potent reminder of the hazards of relying too heavily on any one partner. Havana is already beginning to branch ou coverage. Even so, in the long run, the United States remains a vital natural market for Cuban products and services
|
Lifting the embargo reverses Latin American dissent- Cuba will cooperate
| 3,225 | 72 | 1,875 | 525 | 10 | 307 | 0.019048 | 0.584762 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,861 |
Stripping this whole thing bare, as far as I can tell, there is really no foreign policy reason why the United States does not have a normal, or least more natural, diplomatic and economic relationship with Cuba. In fact, there is a serious foreign policy downside for not having that. In Latin America, we just saw the president earlier in 2012 attend the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, where there was a full court, unanimous message from the center, center-left, right, center-right, and every single country in the region, including Washington's closest allies, telling Washington to get it together with Havana, it is time to move forward. Take Colombia, where President [Juan Manuel] Santos has a great relationship with Washington and with Havana, which is hosting talks between his government and the FARC [rebel group] right now. Yet Washington keeps Havana on its terrorist list. Another moment we are living through right now: President Hugo Chavez is very, very ill in Havana, and it seems to me that the shuttle diplomacy that is taking place doesn't involve anybody from Washington. It involves Cubans, Venezuelans, Argentines, and Brazilians. The fact is that with events in Venezuela, the United States is sitting on the margins of one of the biggest political moments in Latin America, [which] runs through Havana. So there are geostrategic reasons within the region, leaving apart the bilateral relationship, why it makes a great deal of sense for a strategy of rapprochement with Cuba.
|
Sweig, ’13 [1/25/13, Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, “Talking to Cuba”, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/talking-cuba/p29879]
|
Stripping this whole thing bare, as far as I can tell, there is really no foreign policy reason why the United States does not have a normal, or least more natural, diplomatic and economic relationship with Cuba. there is a serious foreign policy downside for not having that. In Latin America, we just saw the president earlier in 2012 attend the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, where there was a full court, unanimous message from the center, center-left, right, center-right, and every single country in the region, including Washington's closest allies, telling Washington to get it together with Havana, it is time to move forward. Yet Washington keeps Havana on its terrorist list. Another moment we are living through right now: President Hugo Chavez is very, very ill in Havana, and it seems to me that the shuttle diplomacy that is taking place doesn't involve anybody from Washington. It involves Cubans, Venezuelans, Argentines, and Brazilians. the United States is sitting on the margins of one of the biggest political moments in Latin America, [which] runs through Havana. So there are geostrategic reasons within the region, leaving apart the bilateral relationship, why it makes a great deal of sense for a strategy of rapprochement with Cuba.
|
The Embargo is destroying US credibility in the region
| 1,510 | 54 | 1,264 | 246 | 9 | 206 | 0.036585 | 0.837398 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,862 |
The United Nations General Assembly will vote Tuesday on a resolution calling on the United States to end its 52-year embargo against Cuba, but there’s little reason to believe the outcome will alter the Obama administration’s Havana policy. The U.S. bans its citizens from travelling to or doing business in Cuba. Ending the embargo is seen as a move that could strengthen Obama’s relationship with his Latin American neighbors who are unanimously against “el bloqeo.” The resolution has been approved every year since first introduced in 1990. Brazil’s representative said after the vote last year that the embargo “went against international law and inhibited regional relations” while Argentina’s said “it went against the principles of international law and the UN charter.” After Monday’s success in the General Assembly vote for election to the Human Rights Council, which the U.S. topped with 131 votes in the Western Group, Tuesday’s vote is likely to see the U.S in the tiniest minority when the votes are tallied. Last year, 186 countries voted for the text while only Israel joined the U.S. in voting against it. Even Canada, normally a staunch ally of the U.S. and Israel, voted for lifting the embargo. While President Obama has laxed some of the travel restrictions - making it easier for students and religious groups to visit and allowing Cuban-Americans to visit Cuba as much as they want - he has renewed the trade ban each year of his presidency. Cuba is the only country placed on the U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 after the removal of North Korea in 2008. There’s speculation that Obama’s strong showing among Cuban-Americans in last week’s election will harbor a change in policy but that’s unlikely to include a lifting of the trade embargo.
|
Fitzgerald, ’12 [11/12/12, Denis Fitzgerald is reporter for the UN, “UN to (Again) Call on U.S. to End Cuban Embargo”, http://untribune.com/post/35579300349/un-to-again-call-on-u-s-to-end-cuban-embargo]
|
The U.S. bans its citizens from travelling to or doing business in Cuba. Ending the embargo is seen as a move that could strengthen Obama’s relationship with his Latin American neighbors who are unanimously against “el bloqeo Brazil’s representative said after the vote last year that the embargo “went against international law and inhibited regional relations” while Argentina’s said “it went against the principles of international law and the UN charter.” Obama has renewed the trade ban each year of his presidency. Cuba is the only country placed on the U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 after the removal of North Korea in 2008.
|
Embargo is a thorn in US-Latin American relations
| 1,775 | 49 | 641 | 295 | 8 | 106 | 0.027119 | 0.359322 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,863 |
When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week, Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been for half a century. While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s pro-business Felipe Calderon, leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades. Obama, born six months before President John F. Kennedyimposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead, he’ll seek to satisfy the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less ambitious steps disclosed by the administration today -- repealing restrictions on family visits and remittances imposed by former President George W. Bush. That would mesh with his stated goal of changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance” that he attributed to his predecessor in his sole policy speech on the region last May. “All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Washington-based Organization of American States, said in an interview. “They value what Obama has promised, but they want more.” The policy changes unveiled today also include an expanded list of items that can be shipped to the island, and a plan to allow U.S. telecommunications companies to apply for licenses in Cuba. Symbolically Important Cuba, the only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes and looked to Cuba and its longtime leader Fidel Castro, 82, for inspiration and support. Even though most countries shun the communist policies of Castro and his brother, now-President Raul Castro, the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island. “Cuba represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and that’s why it’s so important for Obama to address it now,” says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, who headed the State Department’s Cuba interest section in Havana from 1979-1982. “Unless Obama wants to be booed off the stage, he better come with fresh ideas.” The U.S. president, 47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the principal theme at the summit and would prefer the session focus instead on the economy, poverty and the environment, says Jeffrey Davidow, the White House’s top adviser for the meeting. Obama also understands that he can’t control the discussion and intends to deal with the other leaders as partners, Davidow told reporters on April 6. Past Protests That should be enough to avoid a repeat of the circus atmosphere surrounding the previous summit, held in 2005 in Argentina, when 30,000 protesters led by Chavez and Argentine soccer legend Diego Maradona burned an effigy of Bush. Obama will also benefit from the U.S.’s decision to take off the table its earlier proposal for a free-trade area spanning the Americas, an issue that divided countries at the four previous summits starting in 1994. Still, Obama’s meeting with Chavez, who last month called the U.S. president an “ignoramus” when it comes to Latin America, has the potential to generate a few sparks. To defuse the tension, Obama may say the U.S. is seeking good relations with governments across the political spectrum, says Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research group. Chavez, 54, joined Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally, in expelling the U.S. ambassadors to their countries in September for alleged interference in domestic politics. ‘Unpredictable’ Chavez “The main concern at this point for the U.S. is the unpredictability of Chavez,” Hakim says. U.S. influence in Latin America waned under Bush as the war on terror diverted attention to the Middle East while the region expanded economic and diplomatic ties with Russia, China and other outside-the-hemisphere powers. In December, Brazil hosted the first-ever, region-wide summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations that excluded the U.S. The summit reinforced other initiatives such as the Union of South American Nations, which was formed by 12 countries to mediate regional conflicts, bypassing the OAS. Taking the “minor step” of easing travel restrictions to Cuba, a campaign pledge Obama made almost a year ago, may not satisfy the region’s increasingly assertive leaders, Julia Sweig, director of the Latin America program at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview from Washington. ‘A Lot on the Table’ “The Cubans are putting a lot on the table,” says Sweig, the author of two books on Cuba, including the forthcoming “Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know.”
|
Goodman, ’9 [4/3/09, Joshua Goodman is a reporter for Bloomberg, “Latin America to Push Obama on Cuba Embargo at Summit (Update1)”, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0_zyWMi297I&refer=uk]
|
When Barack Obama arrives Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been for half a century. leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades “All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba They value what Obama has promised, but they want more.” Cuba, the only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island. Cuba represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and that’s why it’s so important for Obama to address it now .S. influence in Latin America waned under Bush as the war on terror diverted attention to the Middle East while the region expanded economic and diplomatic ties with Russia, China and other outside-the-hemisphere powers In December, Brazil hosted the first-ever, region-wide summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations that excluded the U.
|
Lifting the embargo is key to Latin American Relations
| 4,977 | 54 | 1,183 | 800 | 9 | 196 | 0.01125 | 0.245 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,864 |
Conclusion: In Search of the Elusive Partnership Upon entering the White House in January 2009, the Obama administration had to move quickly to confront a range of pressing challenges. There is little doubt that the new president’s to-do list was to be dominated by the economic crisis, Afghanistan and Iraq. Issues facing Latin America and the Caribbean, though important, were of less immediate concern. That does not mean, however, that Obama has not engaged in serious and substantive work to help repair the damage that the Bush administration has wrought on US-Latin American relations. Moreover, there is now a window of opportunity to push through significant changes and lay the foundation for implementing Obama’s vision for renewing US leadership in the Americas. Indeed, Obama’s election ushered in a welcome honeymoon period for his administration in a region that is strategically important for US interests — and the challenge was to prolong this moment and harness it to rebuild some semblance of hemispheric cooperation. The path ahead will not be easy, but Obama has already substantially recalibrated US-Latin America policy in the direction of engagement in small but important ways. President Obama and members of his cabinet have frequently met with their counterparts throughout Latin America and the Caribbean and emphasized multilateral diplomacy as the central instrument for addressing the region’s concerns. The US supported a resolution backed by Latin American countries to lift Cuba’s suspension from the Organization of American States, and has stood with Latin American countries in calling for the restoration of democratic rule in Honduras. Under Obama, US relations with Latin America appear to be on the mend, but the progress to date is fragile and by no means irreversible. The political situation in Latin America and the Caribbean has shifted considerably in recent years and the new assertiveness of many regional countries, especially Brazil, has created an increasingly complex situation. Although the early hopes for momentous change have begun to dissipate, the presidency of Barack Obama still has the potential to bring about an important restructuring of inter- American relations. In retrospect, the initial warm glow of good feelings was always destined to give way to a more pragmatic understanding on both sides of the relationship regarding the possibilities and limits of what the US and Latin America can expect of each other. But throughout the Americas, the desire remains that Barack Obama will be attentive and respectful to the region’s concerns. The 44th president of the United States has already pledged to keep an open mind and demonstrate a willingness to listen. The next step is to advance the strategy of substantive, issue-oriented engagement that can sustain the goodwill that so much of the hemisphere felt upon his election to the White House.
|
Erikson, ’10 [April 2010, Daniel P. Erikson is senior associate for U .S. policy at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington, D.C. He has published more than fifty scholarly articles and essays and in publications including the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Miami Herald. He is co-editor of Transforming Socialist Economies: Lessons for Cuba and Beyond, and recipient of a Fulbright scholarship, “The Obama Administration and Latin America: Towards a New Partnership?”, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/Working_Paper%2046.pdf]
|
Issues facing Latin America and the Caribbean, though important, were of less immediate concern. Obama has not engaged in serious and substantive work to help repair the damage that the Bush administration has wrought on US-Latin American relations. Moreover, there is now a window of opportunity to push through significant changes and lay the foundation for implementing Obama’s vision for renewing US leadership in the Americas. his administration in a region that is strategically important for US interests — and the challenge was to prolong this moment and harness it to rebuild some semblance of hemispheric cooperation. The path ahead will not be easy, but Obama has already substantially recalibrated US-Latin America policy in the direction of engagement in small but important ways. US supported a resolution backed by Latin American countries to lift Cuba’s suspension from the Organization of American States, and has stood with Latin American countries in calling for the restoration of democratic rule in Honduras. US relations with Latin America appear to be on the mend, but the progress to date is fragile and by no means irreversible Barack Obama still has the potential to bring about an important restructuring of inter- American relations. In The next step is to advance the strategy of substantive, issue-oriented engagement that can sustain the goodwill that so much of the hemisphere felt upon his election to the White House.
|
Our engagement resolves Relations and US Leadership in the region
| 2,916 | 65 | 1,451 | 458 | 10 | 230 | 0.021834 | 0.502183 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,865 |
Staff believes that the promised review of Cuba policy will reveal at least four weaknesses in current policy. First, because of Cuba's symbolic importance to Latin America, U.S. policy towards the island nation remains a contentious subject with many countries in the region. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet's February 2009 visit to Havana,\2\ and Cuba's admission in December 2008 to the Rio Group of more than 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries demonstrate the region's convergence around a policy of engagement with Cuba, in sharp contrast to the U.S. policy of isolation. U.S. policy is also a source of controversy between the U.S. and the European Union, as reflected in the perennial transatlantic debate over sanctions versus engagement, as well as in the United Nations, which has passed a widely supported resolution condemning the embargo for the past 17 years.
|
Lugar, ’09 [2/23/09, Richard G. Lugar is an American politician who served as a United States Senator, representing Indiana from 1977 to 2013. A member of the Republican Party, Lugar twice served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “CHANGING CUBA POLICY--IN THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL INTEREST”, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-111SPRT47260/html/CPRT-111SPRT47260.htm]
|
Cuba policy will reveal at least four weaknesses in current policy. First, because of Cuba's symbolic importance to Latin America U.S. policy towards the island nation remains a contentious subject with many countries in the region. more than 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries demonstrate the region's convergence around a policy of engagement with Cuba, in sharp contrast to the U.S. policy of isolation U.S. policy is also a source of controversy between the U.S. and the European Union as well as in the United Nation
|
Embargo hurts US influence in Latin America
| 884 | 43 | 528 | 139 | 7 | 86 | 0.05036 | 0.618705 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,866 |
Cuba is important for the United States because of proximity, intertwined history, and culture. Cuba is important in Latin America because it is a romanticized symbol of a small country that stood up to the most powerful country in the world. The Cuban Revolution legitimizes some of the passions that fuel the outrage that many Latin Americans feel regarding the inequality of their own societies, and for 50 years, rightly or wrongly, Cuba has ably portrayed itself as having fought this fight for them, as well as for the downtrodden around the world. During the visit, a Cuban official stated to staff that ``U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America goes through Cuba.'' With the end of the Cold War, however, the GOC does not represent the security threat to the U.S. that it once did. The USG still has significant grievances with the GOC--mostly, its human rights practices and the stifling of political pluralism and property rights as well as the lack of adequate compensation for expropriated assets of U.S. firms and individuals. The remaining security issues, on the other hand, are limited to the potential for a migration crisis provoked by political or economic instability on the island. While Cuba's alliance with Venezuela has intentions of influencing regional affairs, the GOC has not been positioned to ably export its Revolution since the collapse of the Soviet Union forced an end to Cuba's financial support for Latin American guerrilla movements. The GOC's program of medical diplomacy, which exports doctors to developing countries, bolsters the island's soft power, but does not represent a significant threat to U.S. national security. Given current economic challenges, any revenue gained from economic engagement with the United States would likely be used for internal economic priorities, not international activism. For these reasons, the United States' relationships with Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile, have taken priority in Latin America. Cuba, too, has demonstrated that relations with the United States, though advantageous, are not necessary to its survival, having forged closer relationships around the globe. Venezuela, China, and Canada are Cuba's top three trading partners, and recent economic agreements with Brazil and Russia are examples of Cuba's resourcefulness in this regard. As one GOC official told staff, ``We've endured much harsher conditions during the Special Period. We can survive with or without the United States.'' \17\ In hindsight, the U.S. embargo has not served a national security agenda since Cuba ceased to be an effective threat to the security of the United States. In the immediate post-Cold War era, the cost of maintaining this policy was negligible in comparison to the domestic political benefit derived from satisfying Cuban-American groups in the United States. The USG justified the embargo policy as an incentive or inducement for negotiations with the Cuban government, the rationale being that the U.S. would lift the embargo, or parts of it, in response to reform on human rights and democracy. This narrow approach, however, has not furthered progress in human rights or democracy in Cuba and has come at the expense of other direct and regional strategic U.S. interests. Today it is clear that a reform of our policy would serve U.S. security and economic interests in managing migration effectively and combating the illegal drug trade, among other interests. By seizing the initiative at the beginning of a new U.S. Administration and at an important moment in Cuban history, the USG would relinquish a conditional posture that has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not Washington. Reform of U.S.-Cuban relations would also benefit our regional relations. Certain Latin American leaders, whose political appeal depends on the propagation of an array of anti-Washington grievances, would lose momentum as a centerpiece of these grievances is removed. More significantly, Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old regime. The resulting improvement to the United States' image in the region would facilitate the advancement of U.S. interests. If reform in U.S.-Cuba policy were to occur in the direction of sequenced engagement, the impact on the region would be swift and to the benefit of the security and prosperity of the United States. In due order, we must correct the failures of our current policy in a way that enhances U.S. interests.
|
Lugar, ’09 [2/23/09, Richard G. Lugar is an American politician who served as a United States Senator, representing Indiana from 1977 to 2013. A member of the Republican Party, Lugar twice served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “CHANGING CUBA POLICY--IN THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL INTEREST”, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-111SPRT47260/html/CPRT-111SPRT47260.htm]
|
Cuba is important for the United States because of proximity, intertwined history, and culture. Cuba is important in Latin America because it is a romanticized symbol of a small country that stood up to the most powerful country in the world has ably portrayed itself as having fought this fight for them, as well as for the downtrodden around the world. U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America goes through Cuba the end of the Cold War, however, the GOC does not represent the security threat to the U.S. that it once did. The USG still has significant grievances with the GOC--mostly, its human rights practices and the stifling of political pluralism and property rights as well The remaining security issues, on the other hand, are limited to the potential for a migration crisis provoked by political or economic instability on the island. Given current economic challenges, any revenue gained from economic engagement with the United States would likely be used for internal economic priorities, not international activism the United States' relationships with Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile, have taken priority in Latin America. Cuba, too, has demonstrated that relations with the United States, though advantageous, are not necessary to its survival, having forged closer relationships around the globe. Today it is clear that a reform of our policy would serve U.S. security and economic interests in managing migration effectively and combating the illegal drug trade, among other interests. By seizing the initiative at the beginning of a new U.S. Administration and at an important moment in Cuban history the USG would relinquish a conditional posture that has made any policy changes contingent on Havana, not Washington. Reform of U.S.-Cuban relations would also benefit our regional relations Latin American leaders, whose political appeal depends on the propagation of an array of anti-Washington grievances, would lose momentum as a centerpiece of these grievances is removed. M Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old regime. The resulting improvement to the United States' image in the region would facilitate the advancement of U.S. interests. the impact on the region would be swift and to the benefit of the security and prosperity of the United States. In due order, we must correct the failures of our current policy in a way that enhances U.S. interests.
|
Embargo is the Number 1 barrier to effective US-Latin American Relations
| 4,668 | 72 | 2,609 | 738 | 11 | 416 | 0.014905 | 0.563686 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,867 |
The region, however, is absolutely critical to our national interest and security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than the U.S. imports from the Middle East. Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically tied to the region. n1 These immigrants, as well as their sons and daughters, have already begun to take their place amongst America's social, cultural, and political elite. Just south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case eliminating - presidential term limits. In Venezuela the polarization has been drawn along economic lines, whereby Chavez's base of support continues to be poor Venezuelans. In Bolivia the polarization has been drawn along racial lines: the preamble to the new Bolivian constitution, approved in January 2009, makes reference to the "disastrous colonial times," a moment in history that Bolivians of Andean-descent particularly lament. Those regions in Bolivia with the most people of European or mixed descent have consistently voted for increased provincial autonomy and against the constitutional changes proposed by President Morales. Perhaps due to its sweeping changes, the new Constitution was rejected by four of Bolivia's nine provinces. n2 Like Bolivia, Latin America is still searching for its identity. [*191] Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. n3 One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. Soft power, on the other hand, can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion, but is limited by other factors. The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, though having one helps, but rather an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region. n4 In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image. Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 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 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 [Spring 2010, David A. Perez is a J.D. at Yale Law School, “The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department”, Lexis Nexis]
|
The region, however, is absolutely critical to our national interest and security Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically tied to the region Just south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout the entire region. , Latin America is still searching for its identity Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, a it is very likely that Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. n Soft power, on the other hand, can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion, but is limited by other factors The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, though having one helps, but rather an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 stability. Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decade 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 For fifty years, Latin American governments that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus test." the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own , America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example. , warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill.
|
Cuba is key to Latin American Relations and reverses anti-americanism
| 4,759 | 69 | 2,907 | 762 | 10 | 481 | 0.013123 | 0.631234 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,868 |
Abstract: Cuba provides an ideal lens through which to study the Obama administration’s foreign policy of engagement. For half a century, the US economic embargo, coupled with diplomatic isolation or limited engagement, has failed to force democratization on the island. As Raúl Castro has led Cuba down a path of economic reform, the Obama administration has slowly transformed its Cuba policies. This article contends that these recent shifts in US-Cuban relations will allow American policymakers to capitalize on an essential set of political, economic, and strategic gains by ending the embargo and normalizing diplomatic relations. During his inaugural address, US president Barack Obama stated, in an attempt to ease tensions with some of America’s more traditional adversaries, “we will extend a hand, if you are willing to unclench your fist.”1 Indeed, when countries have indicated a readiness to make domestic reforms, the Obama administration has shown an increased willingness to engage them. Cuba, in particular, offers policymakers an ideal case study of how the administration has reacted to internal reforms. It also demonstrates how the administration, in an attempt to bolster its position as the world’s leader, has relied primarily upon soft power to develop its ties with other countries. In light of Raúl Castro2 charting a new course for Cuba, recent US policy initiatives have been aimed at a limited engagement and an easing of tensions with Cuban leadership. While these efforts constitute a vital first step in the transformation of US-Cuban relations, it is in America’s best interest to more firmly “extend a hand.” In fact, Cuba provides President Obama an opportunity to highlight the potential benefits of America’s foreign policy of engagement. In 2002, Cuban American scholar Louis Pérez Jr. noted that the US embargo policy has been “derived from assumptions that long ago ceased to have relevance to the post-Cold War environment, designed as a response to threats that are no longer present, against adversaries that no longer exist.”3 to be sure, American policymakers have been unable to sufficiently adjust Cuba policy to the realities of post-Cold War relations with the island. The economic embargo, which has been in place for half a century, coupled with either diplomatic isolation or limited engagement, has failed to force democratization on the island. If anything, it has taught that democracy cannot be imposed or coerced, but must grow from within. In this light, ending the embargo and engaging Cuba will allow the united States to better influence a process of political reform on the island. Conversely, as America stalls, other countries are playing a larger role in what traditionally has been considered America’s backyard. Fortunately for American policymakers, recent and drastic shifts in the realities of US-Cuban relations show that there is much to gain, and surprisingly little to lose, from transforming US-Cuba policy. Though for too long domestic politics has trumped international security goals, pragmatic leaders will soon grasp the full extent of these new realities. At a time when the United States runs a large trade deficit and holds a rising national debt, President Obama’s foreign policy of engagement could provide essential political, economic, and strategic gains for America. In order to capitalize on these opportunities, the administration should end the embargo and open diplomatic relations with Cuba.
|
Hinderdael, ’11 [6/11/11, Klaas Hinderdael is an M.A. candidate at SAIS Bologna Center, concentrating in American Foreign Policy and Energy, Resources, and Environment. He was born in Belgium and has spent much of his life in the United States, graduating from the University of Virginia in 2009 with a degree in History and Economics. He is continuing his research on Cuban-American relations, writing his master’s thesis on Kennedy’s two-track policy toward Cuba in 1963, “Breaking the Logjam:Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership”, http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true]
|
For half a century, the US economic embargo, coupled with diplomatic isolation or limited engagement, has failed to force democratization on the islan , the Obama administration has slowly transformed its Cuba policies. This article contends that these recent shifts in US-Cuban relations will allow American policymakers to capitalize on an essential set of political, economic, and strategic gains by ending the embargo and normalizing diplomatic relations . It also demonstrates how the administration, in an attempt to bolster its position as the world’s leader, has relied primarily upon soft power to develop its ties with other countries , recent US policy initiatives have been aimed at a limited engagement and an easing of tensions with Cuban leadership. While these efforts constitute a vital first step in the transformation of US-Cuban relations, it is in America’s best interest to more firmly “extend a hand Obama an opportunity to highlight the potential benefits of America’s foreign policy of engagement The economic embargo, which has been in place for half a century, coupled with either diplomatic isolation or limited engagement, has failed to force democratization on the island. . In this light, ending the embargo and engaging Cuba will allow the united States to better influence a process of political reform on the island other countries are playing a larger role in what traditionally has been considered America’s backyard. recent and drastic shifts in the realities of US-Cuban relations show that there is much to gain, and surprisingly little to lose, from transforming US-Cuba policy a time when the United States runs a large trade deficit and holds a rising national debt, President Obama’s foreign policy of engagement could provide essential political, economic, and strategic gains for America. In order to capitalize on these opportunities, the administration should end the embargo and open diplomatic relations with Cuba.
|
Ending Embargo is good for US Relations in the region
| 3,488 | 53 | 1,963 | 541 | 10 | 305 | 0.018484 | 0.563771 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,869 |
Post-Embargo Cuba Closely related to the topic of Inter-American Relations is the current situation in Cuba. U.S. foreign policy has attempted to isolate the regime via an ineffective embargo and to micromanage the post-Fidel transition in response to domestic constituents. Rather than isolating the island-nation this has thrust it into the mainstream of US politics and made it a bone of contention in inter-American relations. The illness of Fidel Castro and the transfer of power to his brother Raul generated expectations of political change that were largely disappointed. Overtures by the Obama administration, which reversed Bush-era restrictions on travel and remittances while increasing the options for people-to-people diplomacy, only marginally improved relations between the two countries. The lackluster performance of the Cuban economy, which depends on generous oil subsidies from Venezuela for its subsistence, and the global economic crisis forced the regime to introduce economic reforms, including a greater reliance on self-employment and entrepreneurship. Property ownership was also allowed, as well as its trading in the market. The state will concurrently reduce its employment levels and phase out food subsidies through the gradual elimination of ration cards. While some argue that these reforms will represent a sea change others believe their impact will be marginal. Raul Castro has vowed not to abandon the socialist model and has shown no signs of opening the political realm. Rather than renewing the ranks of the party he purged it of its younger elements and surrounded himself with revolutionary stalwarts. From the perspective of the United States, no further policy reformulation appears likely in the near future. Much will depend on the threats and opportunities to national and sectoral interests generated by the changing situation on the Island.
|
CIPR, ’13 [7/8/13, the Center For Inter-American Policy & Research at Tulane University, “Post-Embargo Cuba”, http://cipr.tulane.edu/pages/detail/233/Post-Embargo-Cuba]
|
Closely related to the topic of Inter-American Relations is the current situation in Cuba. U.S. foreign policy has attempted to isolate the regime via an ineffective embargo Rather than isolating the island-nation this has thrust it into the mainstream of US politics and made it a bone of contention in inter-American relations Overtures by the Obama administration, which reversed Bush-era restrictions on travel and remittances while increasing the options for people-to-people diplomacy, only marginally improved relations between the two countries. The lackluster performance of the Cuban economy, which depends on generous oil subsidies from Venezuela for its subsistence, and the global economic crisis forced the regime to introduce economic reforms, From the perspective of the United States, no further policy reformulation appears likely in the near future. Much will depend on the threats and opportunities to national and sectoral interests generated by the changing situation on the Island.
|
The embargo is the major thorn in relations- no alt causes
| 1,891 | 58 | 1,004 | 284 | 11 | 148 | 0.038732 | 0.521127 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,870 |
The U.S. government is fighting an effort to allow Cuba to return to the Organization of American States after a 47-year suspension. But the resistance is putting it at odds with much of Latin America as the Obama administration is trying to improve relations in the hemisphere. Eliminating the Cold War-era ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS, the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America. The wrangling over Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras. "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba its litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, she said, Latin countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to Latin America."President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and offering to restart immigration talks suspended in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail congressional action. Obama is facing pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and from key U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel restrictions and ease the embargo. Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the U.S. gestures. Latin American leaders say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in the region have established relations with communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962 suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has suggested that OAS members could postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic reforms.
|
Sheridan, ’09 [5/29/09, Mary Beth Sheridan is a diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, “U.S. Urged to Relax Cuba Policy to Boost Regional Relations”, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-29/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions]
|
The U.S. government is fighting an effort to allow Cuba to return to the Organization of American States the resistance is putting it at odds with much of Latin America as the Obama administration is trying to improve relations in the hemisphere. Eliminating the Cold War-era ban would be largely symbolic, But the debate shows how central the topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America The wrangling over Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministe "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba its litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the tables , Latin countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to Latin America."President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with . But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail congressional action. Obama is facing pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and from key U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel restrictions and ease the embargo Latin American leaders say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in the region have established relations with communist nations such as Chi 1962 suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists
|
Removing Embargo relieves tensions in the Hemisphere
| 2,305 | 52 | 1,548 | 366 | 7 | 251 | 0.019126 | 0.685792 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,871 |
Both Muse and Bilbao concluded that Cuba’s continued presence on the State Department’s terrorism list arises less from these shaky legal justifications than from political calculations. Others have arrived at similar conclusions for years. In 2002, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton suggested that maintaining Cuba on the list keeps happy a certain part of the voting public in Florida – a politically important state with a large Cuban exile population – and “it doesn’t cost anything”. Muse disagreed with the latter part of that statement, however. He noted that by behaving arbitrarily in what should be a strictly legal matter, the United States was damaging its “credibility on the issue of international terrorism” and diminishing its “seriousness of purpose” in using the term “terrorism” in a meaningful manner.
|
Metzker, 6/13 [6/13/13, Jared Metzker is a reporter at the Inter Press Service News Agency, “Pressure Building for U.S. to Remove Cuba from ‘Terror Sponsor’ List”, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/pressure-building-for-u-s-to-remove-cuba-from-terror-sponsor-list/]
|
Both Muse and Bilbao concluded that Cuba’s continued presence on the State Department’s terrorism list arises from these shaky legal justifications Others have arrived at similar conclusions for years. Bill Clinton suggested that maintaining Cuba on the list keeps happy a certain part of the voting public in Florida and “it doesn’t cost anything”. Muse disagreed with the latter part of that statement, however. He noted that by behaving arbitrarily in what should be a strictly legal matter, the United States was damaging its “credibility on the issue of international terrorism diminishing its “seriousness of purpose” in using the term “terrorism”
|
Keeping Cuba on the terror list destroys our cred on the issue
| 830 | 62 | 653 | 130 | 12 | 101 | 0.092308 | 0.776923 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,872 |
The continuance of the embargo has incited widespread international condemnation of the Untied States. The United Nations General Assembly has consistently denounced the imposition of the embargo almost unanimously on the basis of its illegitimacy and violation of internationally accepted humanitarian standards. (Herrera, 2003, 50) The United States has also recently had to relinquish its seats on the human rights commissions both in the United Nations and in the Organization of American States, which many analysts believe to be a form of retribution aimed at the United States in response to its continuation of the Cuban embargo in the midst of its unfathomable and deplorable effects on the Cuban populace. (Weinmann, 2004, 30) Many leaders in the international community have expressed their distain for the U.S. embargo through international organizations based on the fact that the United States attempts to impose the sanctions it places on Cuba via “extraterritoriality,” or against the international community, thus clearly violating internationally-accepted standards of national sovereignty and international law (Herrera, 2003, 51).
|
Safran, ’12 [8/14/12, Brian Safran has a Master of Science in Global Affairs , “End the Cuban Embargo - Brian Safran”, http://brian-safran-4.quora.com/End-the-Cuban-Embargo-Brian-Safran]
|
The continuance of the embargo has incited widespread international condemnation of the Untied States United Nations has consistently denounced the imposition of the embargo almost unanimously on the basis of its illegitimacy and violation of internationally accepted humanitarian standa United States has also recently had to relinquish its seats on the human rights commissions which many analysts believe to be a form of retribution aimed at the United States in response to its continuation of the Cuban embargo in the midst of its unfathomable and deplorable effects on the Cuban populace Many leaders in the international community have expressed their distain for the U.S. embargo through international organizations based on the fact that the United States attempts to impose the sanctions it places on Cuba
|
Embargo hurts US international Standing
| 1,150 | 39 | 815 | 168 | 5 | 125 | 0.029762 | 0.744048 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,873 |
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States. The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—but also deep concerns. This report makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over. Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past. At the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security. The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's governments and citizens. The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and the countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
|
Barshefsky and Hill, ‘8 [2008, Charlene Barshefsky served as United States Trade Representative, the country's top trade negotiator, from 1997 to 2001. She was the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative from 1993 to 1997 and James T. Hill, President, The JT Hill Group, Inc. “U.S.-Latin America Relations A New Direction for a New Reality”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279]
|
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States. The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels fastest-growing trading partner biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrant All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region many countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, is inadequate. The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
|
US-Latin American Relations is key to a laundry list
| 2,198 | 52 | 933 | 334 | 9 | 144 | 0.026946 | 0.431138 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,874 |
New opportunities for US-Latin America Relations: Which Partnerships? To prepare new partnerships it is important to have in mind the three processes already reviewed: prevailing global trends, US government policies and the status of the US economy, and priorities that Latin American governments are ready to carry out. The United States faces years of constraints. It will have to devote greater resources to preserving the competitive and technological edge that is critical to maintaining its influence. It is likely that Latin America—especially South America—will continue to multiply its exchanges with Asia over the next five years. Rates of investment and the expansion of the middle class in China, India, and other middle-income countries will drive global growth through expanded domestic consumption. Latin America will account for a larger share of the demand for products than industrialized countries. In this global context, the United States will be closely following events in Latin America—as a market, an energy supplier, and a region with which it shares problems and opportunities. Most US attention will focus on Mexico and Brazil, albeit for different reasons and with different emphases. Mexican markets, oil resources, and migrants have a strong impact in the United States. Mexico and the United States need to work closely together in combating drugs and organized crime. Brazil will draw high levels of US attention because of its rising global role, expanding market, industrial progress, and the production of oil, food and biofuels. Immigration will continue to be necessary for the United States to sustain its growth. Negative aspects of immigration tend to grab the spotlight, but the fact remains that Latin American immigrants make a major contribution to the US economy. A recent report5 projects that the US population will increase from 310 million in 2010 to 370 million in 2030, half of it as a result of immigration. This would make the United States the only industrialized country to have population growth through 2030. Leaving aside Brazil and Mexico–whose size will make them increasingly important actors–the rest of the countries should cooperate and coordinate with one another more effectively to have some influence on global political and economic trends. The expanding role of Brazil and Mexico is guaranteed by their sheer size. But smaller Latin American countries must seek closer cooperation and coordination to enhance their influence. Each will take the initiative and seek mutually beneficial arrangements with the United States. As a start, three areas are worth pursuing: democracy strengthening; energy and climate change; and education, science, and technology. Democracy Strengthening a) In Central America, collaboration could bolster the fight against organized crime, improve citizen security, and strengthen democratic institutions. The United States has proposed a Central America Citizen Security Partnership. High levels of drug consumption and arms sales to countries south of the border give the United States a special responsibility in this regard. Mexico and Colombia can also make an important contribution, while South America can cooperate in security, crime investigation, police training, and other initiatives. b) South American nations should get more involved in providing assistance to Haiti. c) The region should also offer support to help facilitate a transition to democracy in Cuba. Despite the steps taken by the Obama administration regarding visits and remittances, the ineffective US embargo continues with no end in sight. For Latin Americans, it will be important to have conditions in place for a peaceful transition when Cuban leadership changes. It is helpful to encourage some processes underway in Cuba, such as the release of political prisoners, improved freedom of expression, and economic reforms, which could pave the way for a democratic opening. Energy and Climate Change Although President Obama has spoken about an Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, its content, priorities, goals, and resources remain unclear. a) There are opportunities for collaboration in developing renewable energy sources, especially solar, and assisting with nuclear plant safety and ethanol, cleaner coal, and natural gas research. b) Partnership with the United States could also help Latin America reduce CO2 emissions, protect tropical and temperate forests, and safeguard glaciers and water resources. Latin America abounds in natural resources and must take measures to protect them. c) Climate change and increasing concentration of the population will intensify the impact of natural disasters. Emergency preparedness requires effective institutions, first responder training, equipment acquisition, public education, and improved land use and construction standards. Latin American countries can take the initiative in these areas. Education, Science, and Technology Education, science, and technology help increase productivity and drive growth. Collaboration in these areas could focus on goods and services, with an emphasis on the use of information and communications technology. Latin American countries should propose innovative initiatives and explore areas of potential agreement, including: a) President Obama’s only quantitative proposal was to increase the number of US graduate students studying in Latin America to 100,000 and the number of Latin Americans studying in the United States to 100,000. To date, Asia has taken better advantage than Latin America of the academic excellence offered by US universities. New proposals designed to stimulate and fund these exchanges are needed. Chile’s 2008 Becas Chile student aid program is a good example with much potential. b) Joint research in areas of importance to Latin America should be expanded. These include renewable energy, especially solar, biotechnology, and collaboration between Latin American and US businesses and research centers. A Rand Corporation report6 identifies 16 technology applications that will change living conditions in this decade and notes that some Latin American countries will be able to adopt them if they carry out certain policies and make a sustained effort. And it is important to remember that proficiency in English is an essential tool in a knowledge-based society. c) With respect to trade, the United States should move to eliminate barriers and open its market to Latin American products, especially foods. If WTO talks remain deadlocked, free trade agreements between the United States and Latin America should be expanded. There are serious political obstacles given the concern that such an approach would result in less employment in the United States. A more open global economy helps small and medium-sized countries whose development depends on exporting goods and services with increasing value-added. The 24 references to “partner” and “partnership” in President Obama’s Santiago speech should not remain empty talk. While some may interpret Obama’s logic of partnership as a sign of disinterest, I believe it reflects the new reality within which the United States will have to function. It falls to all Latin Americans to take a more active role in pursuing opportunities and demanding that the United States make a firm commitment to its proposed new partnerships. Are Latin Americans prepared for this? Is there enough will in the United States to seek such partnerships? It is worth making a serious effort to see if this can work.
|
Bitar, ’11 [September 2011, Sergio Bitar, a long-time member and now non-resident senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue. Bitar served as senator as well as minister of energy and mines, education, and public works under three separate administrations in Chile, “Latin America and the United States: Looking Towards 2020”, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/LAtheUS2020.pdf]
|
New opportunities for US-Latin America Relations: Which Partnerships? To prepare new partnerships it is important to have in mind the three processes already reviewed: prevailing global trends, US government policies and the status of the US economy, and priorities that Latin American governments are ready to carry out. Immigration will continue to be necessary for the United States to sustain its growth. Negative aspects of immigration tend to grab the spotlight, but the fact remains that Latin American immigrants make a major contribution to the US economy. This would make the United States the only industrialized country to have population growth through 2030 –the rest of the countries should cooperate and coordinate with one another more effectively to have some influence on global political and economic trends But smaller Latin American countries must seek closer cooperation and coordination to enhance their influence. Each will take the initiative and seek mutually beneficial arrangements with the United States. As a start, three areas are worth pursuing: democracy strengthening; energy and climate change; and education, science, and technology. Democracy Strengthening a collaboration could bolster the fight against organized crime, improve citizen security, and strengthen democratic institutions. South American nations should get more involved in providing assistance to Haiti. c) The region should also offer support to help facilitate a transition to democracy in Cuba. the ineffective US embargo continues with no end in sight. Energy and Climate Chang There are opportunities for collaboration in developing renewable energy sources, especially solar, and assisting with nuclear plant safety and ethanol, cleaner coal, and natural gas research. b) Partnership with the United States could also help Latin America reduce CO2 emissions, protect tropical and temperate forests, and safeguard glaciers and water resources. Latin America abounds in natural resources and must take measures to protect them. c) Climate change and increasing concentration of the population will intensify the impact of natural disasters. Emergency preparedness requires effective institutions, Education, Science, and Technology Education, science, and technology help increase productivity and drive growth. Collaboration in these areas could focus on goods and services, with an emphasis on the use of information and communications technology. Latin American countries should propose innovative initiatives and explore areas of potential agreement, 16 technology applications that will change living conditions in this decade and notes that some Latin American countries will be able to adopt them if they carry out certain policies and make a sustained effort the United States should move to eliminate barriers and open its market to Latin American products, especially foods. If WTO talks remain deadlocked, free trade agreements between the United States and Latin America should be expande . A more open global economy helps small and medium-sized countries whose development depends on exporting goods and services with increasing value-added. I believe it reflects the new reality within which the United States will have to function. It falls to all Latin Americans to take a more active role in pursuing opportunities and demanding that the United States make a firm commitment to its proposed new partnerships. ? It is worth making a serious effort to see if this can work.
|
US-Latin American Relations key to Democracy, Climate change, alternative energies, and S&T
| 7,564 | 91 | 3,496 | 1,143 | 12 | 521 | 0.010499 | 0.455818 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,875 |
So far, Washington's tattered relations with Latin America have mainly translated into a series of lost opportunities for both sides. At a time when the Bush administration needs partners and allies across the globe, the United States and its international agenda are discredited in Latin America. Democratic progress is faltering in the region, in large part because of the dismal economic and social performance in country after country. The United States still has a big market in Latin America, with U.S. exports to the region valued at more than $150 billion a year, almost as much as the value of its exports to the European Union. But two-thirds of that goes to Mexico, while Brazil and other South American markets remain relatively untapped in the absence of more productive hemispheric trade arrangements. The burgeoning Hispanic population in the United States is already providing important new links to countries throughout Latin America, but its potential contribution is constrained by Washington's muddled and unworkable immigration rules. U.S. interests in the region are endangered in other ways, too. Oil and natural gas supplies from politically troubled Venezuela and other energy-rich Andean nations are less secure than ever. Several small and weak states in the Caribbean and Latin America are at risk of becoming permanent centers of drug activity, money laundering, and other criminal operations. Stability is threatened by the upsurge of crime and violence almost everywhere in Latin America. The United States could end up paying a stiff price for the region's economic reversals and unsettled politics. Unfortunately, there are few prospects for a turnaround in U.S.-Latin American relations anytime soon.
|
Hakim, ’06 [January/February 2006, Peter Hakim is the President of the Inter-American Dialogue, “Is Washington Losing Latin America?”, http://www.chileconsult.com/Is_Washington_Losing_Latin_America.pdf]
|
So far, Washington's tattered relations with Latin America have mainly translated into a series of lost opportunities for both sides. At the United States and its international agenda are discredited in Latin America. Democratic progress is faltering in the region, in large part because of the dismal economic and social performance in country after country. The United States still has a big market in Latin America in the region are endangered in other ways, too. Oil and natural gas supplies from politically troubled Venezuela and other energy-rich Andean nations are less secure than ever. Several small and weak states in the Caribbean and Latin America are at risk of becoming permanent centers of drug activity, money laundering, and other criminal operations. Stability is threatened by the upsurge of crime and violence almost everywhere in Latin America. Unfortunately, there are few prospects for a turnaround in U.S.-Latin American relations anytime soon.
|
Relations are mutually beneficial to both sides- democracy, energy production, drugs, crime and stability
| 1,734 | 105 | 969 | 268 | 14 | 150 | 0.052239 | 0.559701 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,876 |
We should embrace willing partners in Chile and Uruguay, up through the Andes and Central America, and into North America, including those countries with which we already have trade agreements. However, free trade agreements are not the only tools for breaking down barriers to commerce, integrating economies and empowering entrepreneurs. The United States should look at its previous efforts in North America to expand its partnerships with Canada and Mexico beyond NAFTA, such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America, and deploy similar programs in the rest of the hemisphere. Furthermore, trade facilitation agreements can serve as multilateral roadmaps that countries can follow to retool their economies to stimulate broad-based growth within national economies as well as among them. We must also find ways to facilitate trade and investment with Colombia in the months ahead, even if we must do so without a trade accord. Our words and deeds should emphasize that the first and last goal of free market policies is to propel sound microeconomic reforms to attack the structural poverty in which 200 million of our neighbors live today. The United States should encourage reforms to make it easier to start a small- or medium-sized enterprise or access credit so that individuals can improve their own lot in life rather than have to rely on corrupt and inefficient governments. Eventually, government will catch up, but poor people should not be expected to wait. We should work with our neighbors to identify best practices for educating at-risk youth, helping the poor, and retraining workers displaced by trade agreements. Mexico's housing credit initiative and Brazil's "Bolsa Família" (a stipend for families) are examples of home-grown initiatives that help the poor help themselves.11 At the same time, the small island states of the Caribbean also deserve special attention. While Chávez has offered aid in the form of subsidized oil loans (which saddle these most indebted states with even more debt), the United States has a real opportunity to play a constructive role in the Caribbean. A new administration could help forge an agreement that combines permanent preferential access to markets for goods and services with political and technical support for economic and political integration among its small island states. We could reverse the "brain drain" by mobilizing the Caribbean diaspora to expand its vital but scarce middle-management corps and incentivize trade and investment among the small but growing economies of the Caribbean basin. Such an international plan might encompass the Caribbean states plus the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Central America and others with an interest in the sub-region. Promoting stability of these small states will enhance their ability to work together (and with us) to control migration and drug trafficking. Our cooperation should have a security component: transnational cooperation and information-sharing to attack drug syndicates and gangs that operate with virtual impunity across borders. We should reinforce existing international programs to strengthen the capacity of governments to attack the acute threat of gang violence and to cooperate with one another in an integrated strategy to bust up the drug-trafficking organizations that produce, transport and distribute deadly drugs in our countries.
|
Noreiga, ’08 [January 2008, Roger Noreiga is a visting fellow for American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, “The Americas and the 2008 Elections: Ideas for Renewed Engagement”, https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Noriega_LatAm_Policy_Paper.pdf]
|
We should embrace willing partners in Central America, and into North America, including those countries with which we already have trade agreements The United States should look at its previous efforts in North America to expand its partnerships . Furthermore, trade facilitation agreements can serve as multilateral roadmaps that countries can follow to retool their economies to stimulate broad-based growth within national economies as well as among them. At the same time, the small island states of the Caribbean also deserve special attention. While Chávez has offered aid in the form of subsidized oil loans the United States has a real opportunity to play a constructive role in the Caribbean. A new administration could help forge an agreement that combines permanent preferential access to markets for goods and services with political and technical support for economic and political integration among its small island states. Promoting stability of these small states will enhance their ability to work together (and with us) to control migration and drug trafficking. Our cooperation should have a security component: transnational cooperation and information-sharing to attack drug syndicates and gangs that operate with virtual impunity across borders We should reinforce existing international programs to bust up the drug-trafficking organizations that produce, transport and distribute deadly drugs in our countries.
|
Latin American Cooperation key to regional security and controlling migration and drug flow
| 3,409 | 91 | 1,435 | 522 | 13 | 212 | 0.024904 | 0.40613 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,877 |
A stable and prosperous Americas is indispensable to US economic success and security. However, the US economic and fiscal crises and preoccupation with two controversial wars distracted policy makers in Washington and undermined US leadership in the region. Although access to the US market, investment, technology, and other economic benefits is valued in most countries in the region, the United States is not the only partner to choose from– with China’s influence growing. The United States must recover its own credibility by making bold decisions to restore fiscal responsibility, aggressive trade promotion, energy interdependence, and economic growth. The security challenges in the Americas are very real and growing more complicated every day. Illegal narcotics trafficking, transnational organized crime, and radical populism fueled by Venezuela’s petrodollars and allied with dangerous extra-regional forces pose a daunting set of challenges. Alongside a positive economic engagement, assessing and addressing threats is an indispensable obligation to US security and regional leadership. Expanding Regional Economic Cooperation and Trade Integration An aggressive trade promotion and foreign investment strategy in today’s hypercompetitive globalized economy are imperatives. Mexico, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Colombia have been at the forefront in modernizing their economies, liberalizing trade, opening their economies to investment, and becoming more competitive overall. Since 2003, an estimated 73 million Latin Americans have risen out of poverty. Moreover, between then and 2010, the average Latin American income increased by more than 30 percent, meaning that today nearly one-third of the region’s one-billion population is considered middle class. And in just the next five years, regional economies are projected to expand by one-third. That macroeconomic stability generates even greater opportunities for US business. Already the Western Hemisphere supplies one-quarter of the world’s crude oil, one-third of the world’s natural gas, nearly one-fourth of its coal, and more than a third of global electricity, while offering tremendous potential for the development of renewable energy technologies. Three of the United States’ top four foreign sources of energy are in the Americas. The US administration must recognize this reality and act to take full advantage of the opportunities.
|
Noriega, ’12 [10/22/12, Roger Noriega is a Mexican-American, visiting fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. He has served as a U.S. diplomat and policy maker, specializing in Western Hemisphere Affairs, “Latin America is crucial to US competitiveness”, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/latin-america-is-crucial-to-us-competitiveness/]
|
A stable and prosperous Americas is indispensable to US economic success and security. the US economic and fiscal crises and preoccupation with two controversial wars distracted policy makers in Washington and undermined US leadership in the region. Although access to the US market, investment, technology, and other economic benefits is valued in most countries in the region, the United States is not the only partner to choose from– with China’s influence growing. The United States must recover its own credibility by making bold decisions to restore fiscal responsibility, aggressive trade promotion, energy interdependence, and economic growth The security challenges in the Americas are very real and growing more complicated every day. Alongside a positive economic engagement, assessing and addressing threats is an indispensable obligation to US security and regional leadership Expanding Regional Economic Cooperation and Trade Integration An aggressive trade promotion and foreign investment strategy in today’s hypercompetitive globalized economy are imperatives That macroeconomic stability generates even greater opportunities for US business. Already the Western Hemisphere , while offering tremendous potential for the development of renewable energy technologies. Three of the United States’ top four foreign sources of energy are in the Americas. The US administration must recognize this reality and act to take full advantage of the opportunities.
|
Latin America key to US economic competiveness (and a bunch of other impact stuff)
| 2,414 | 82 | 1,469 | 345 | 14 | 209 | 0.04058 | 0.605797 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,878 |
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties . Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean
|
Inter-American Dialogue, ’12 [2012, The Inter-American Dialogue is the premier center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs. “Remaking the Relationship the United states and latin America”, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
|
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties . Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the region’s economic performance The United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean
|
Relations solve democracy, warming, and prolif
| 1,575 | 46 | 1,037 | 240 | 6 | 155 | 0.025 | 0.645833 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,879 |
Since he took office, U.S. President Barack Obama has articulated a policy toward Latin America that is centered on the idea of partnership. As he said last April, there would be “no senior or junior partner to this new engagement.” The United States, in other words, would be but one actor on the regional stage, not its director. But recent crises -- from the coup in Honduras to simmering tensions in the Andes -- have revealed a fundamental weakness in the Obama administration’s nascent Latin America policy. Without strong U.S. leadership, partnership in the Americas risks inertia or, even worse, an escalation of tensions on many of the hemisphere’s critical issues, such as transnational crime, democracy, and security. Although some countries -- including Brazil and Chile -- have been willing to take on diplomatic responsibilities commensurate with their economic status, they remain averse to conflict with neighbors, even to the point of willfully downplaying existing disagreements. Such an approach may have served Latin American governments well in the past, when a unified front helped to push issues such as debt relief and alternative thinking on antinarcotics policy. But the failure of any one country to assume a larger regional profile -- especially with regards to protecting norms and security -- has allowed problems to fester.
|
Sabatini and Marczak, ’10 [January 2010, As Senior Director of Policy, Christopher Sabatini oversees the Americas Society and Council of the Americas’ (AS/COA) research and publishing programs. In his capacity at the AS/COA, he chairs the organizations’ working group on rule of law which recently published a report on rule of law in the hemisphere titled Rule of Law, Economic Growth and Prosperity, which in 2008 appeared in Spanish. Dr. Sabatini also chairs the AS/COA’s Cuba Working Group. In April 2007, Dr. Sabatini created and launched the AS/COA’s policy journal, Americas Quarterly (AQ). He is now the Editor-in-Chief of AQ and oversees the AQ website (www.americasquarterly.org) on which he has a regular blog on policy in the Americas, Jason Marczak is director of policy at Americas Society and Council of the Americas and senior editor of the AS/COA policy journal Americas Quarterly, “Obama’s Tango, Restoring U.S. Leadership in Latin America”, http://www.unc.edu/world/2010Seminars/LANC%20reading%202.pdf]
|
Since he took office, U.S. President Barack Obama has articulated a policy toward Latin America that is centered on the idea of partnership The United States, in other words, would be but one actor on the regional stage, not its director. But recent crises have revealed a fundamental weakness in the Obama administration’s nascent Latin America policy. Without strong U.S. leadership, partnership in the Americas risks inertia or, even worse, an escalation of tensions on many of the hemisphere’s critical issues, such as transnational crime, democracy, and security. Although some countrie have been willing to take on diplomatic responsibilities commensurate with their economic status, they remain averse to conflict with neighbors, even to the point of willfully downplaying existing disagreement But the failure of any one country to assume a larger regional profile -- especially with regards to protecting norms and security -- has allowed problems to fester.
|
Strong Latin American Relations is key to stop escalation in the region and solve international security and democracy
| 1,354 | 118 | 967 | 215 | 18 | 148 | 0.083721 | 0.688372 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,880 |
Washington — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says strengthening U.S. relations with Latin America holds economic and security benefits, and also enhances the promotion of democracy and human rights around the world. She spoke March 18 in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, outlining several objectives of President Obama’s March 19–23 trip to Latin America. “In Brazil, he will announce new economic opportunities and discuss new ways we can work together on our core challenges in energy, innovation, education and beyond,” Clinton said. The secretary emphasized that enhancing competitiveness, accelerating innovation, achieving energy security and expanding U.S. exports all “require robust engagement with Latin America.” She said the region’s combined economies grew 6 percent in 2010, and called the expansion “good news for the people of Latin America as well as for the United States.” Growth in Latin American markets will “benefit American workers and companies more than growth anywhere else in the world. It’s the power of proximity — geographic proximity, and also the proximity of our global economic interests,” she said. Clinton said strengthening U.S.–Latin American economic relations “benefits the people of every country involved” and “leads to the rise of … capable partners who can help us accomplish our strategic objectives, from fighting climate change to improving security.” She commended Mexico for its “crucial contribution to the fight against climate change through its remarkable leadership” of the Cancún Climate Summit in 2010. Obama’s second stop will be in Chile, where he will “emphasize our fundamental values and shared commitment to democracy” and “point to the importance of Latin America’s broad commitment to democratic development,” Clinton said. Clinton commended the region’s commitment to democratic progress. “Latin America has undergone a profound democratic transformation, and now it can be a model and even a mentor for those fighting to create and protect democracy everywhere,” she said.
|
Babb, ’11 [3/18/11, Mackenzie C. Babb is a staff writer for IIP Digital, “Clinton Underscores Importance of U.S.-Latin American Relations”, http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/03/20110318163951eiznekcam0.3512079.html#axzz2YPPu2MGy]
|
strengthening U.S. relations with Latin America holds economic and security benefits, and also enhances the promotion of democracy and human rights around the world. The secretary emphasized that enhancing competitiveness, accelerating innovation, achieving energy security and expanding U.S. exports all “require robust engagement with Latin America.” Clinton said strengthening U.S.–Latin American economic relations “benefits the people of every country involved” and “leads to the rise of … capable partners who can help us accomplish our strategic objectives, from fighting climate change to improving security.” he will “emphasize our fundamental values and shared commitment to democracy” and “point to the importance of Latin America’s broad commitment to democratic development,” Clinton said. “Latin America has undergone a profound democratic transformation, and now it can be a model and even a mentor for those fighting to create and protect democracy everywhere,” she said.
|
Latin American Relations solves democracy and human rights abuse
| 2,082 | 64 | 987 | 311 | 9 | 140 | 0.028939 | 0.450161 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,881 |
The United States’ geographic proximity to Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as its extensive trade, migration, and border relationships with countries in the hemisphere, make addressing health issues in the Americas a matter of national interest. Challenges include the persistence of high maternal and infant mortality rates; diarrheal and respiratory diseases; and vaccine-preventable infections in some countries, along with the emergence of noncommunicable chronic diseases as an increasing cause of disability and death among aging populations across the region. Drug resistant infectious agents; an inadequate food and drug safety system; and the emigration of health personnel undermine the region’s efforts to promote disease surveillance and prepare for emergencies. By updating its foreign assistance health priorities for Latin America and the Caribbean; expanding technical cooperation activities; and working with host countries, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other partners to reach underserved communities, the United States can better promote health, security, development, and good will in the region.
|
Bliss, ’09 [3/20/09, Katherine E. Bliss is senior associate with CSIS Global Health Policy Center. Before joining CSIS, she was a foreign affairs officer at the U.S. Department of State, where she led work on environmental health for the Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science, focusing on water, sanitation, and hygiene; indoor air pollution; and climate change adaptation challenges in developing countries. In 2006, she received the Bureau’s Superior Honor Award for her work on environmental health, as well as avian and pandemic influenza preparedness. As a 2003–2004 Council on Foreign Relations international affairs fellow, Bliss served as a member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, covering issues related to global health, international women’s issues, Mexico, and the Summit of the Americas. Previously, she served on the faculty at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where she held tenure and was associate professor. She is currently an adjunct associate professor at Georgetown University and teaches courses in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, “Health in Latin America and the Caribbean: Challenges and Opportunities for U.S. Engagement”, http://csis.org/publication/health-latin-america-and-caribbean]
|
The United States’ geographic proximity to Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as its extensive trade, migration, and border relationships with countries in the hemisphere, make addressing health issues in the Americas a matter of national interest. Challenges include disease along with the emergence of noncommunicable chronic diseases as an increasing cause of disability and death among aging populations across the region. Drug resistant infectious agents; an inadequate food and drug safety system; By updating its foreign assistance health priorities for Latin America and the Caribbean; expanding technical cooperation activities; and working with host countries, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other partners to reach underserved communities, the United States can better promote health, security, development, and good will in the region.
|
US-Latin America Coop key to prevent disease spread
| 1,138 | 51 | 864 | 157 | 8 | 121 | 0.050955 | 0.770701 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,882 |
Cuba said Monday that its economy will grow by no more than 3 percent this year, about the same as in 2012 but far short of the 3.6 percent goal and another indication that President Raul Castro's reforms are generating little new economic activity. Castro, nevertheless, seemed pleased with the reports on his reforms submitted Friday to a meeting of the Council of Ministers and detailed in a story Monday in Granma, the official newspaper of the ruling Communist Party. "We continue advancing and the results can be seen. We are moving at a faster pace than can be imagined by those who criticize our supposed slow pace and ignore the difficulties that we face," he was quoted as saying at the meeting. Since succeeding older brother Fidel in 2008, Castro has allowed more private enterprise and cut state payrolls and subsidies. But many economists have dismissed his reforms as too slow and too weak to rescue Cuba's Soviet-style economy.
|
Tamayo, 7/1 [7/1/13, Juan O. Tamayo is a reporter for the Miami Herald, “Cuban economy stalls despite government reforms”, http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/01/3004326/cuban-economy-stalls-despite-government.html]
|
Cuba said Monday that its economy will grow by no more than 3 percent this year, about the same as in 2012 but far short of the 3.6 percent goal and another indication that President Raul Castro's reforms are generating little new economic activity , Castro has allowed more private enterprise and cut state payrolls and subsidies. But many economists have dismissed his reforms as too slow and too weak to rescue Cuba's Soviet-style economy
|
Cuban growth is low- reforms fail
| 943 | 33 | 441 | 160 | 6 | 75 | 0.0375 | 0.46875 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,883 |
Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and political transformation. Reforms instituted within the past few years have brought the expansion of private sector entrepreneurial activity, including lifting restrictions on the sales of residential real estate, automobiles, and electronic goods. Additional reforms included, more than a million hectares of idle land has been leased to private farmers, where citizens have been granted permission to stay in hotels previously reserved for tourists, and freedom being granted for most Cubans to travel abroad. Stating that it was time for the “gradual transfer” of “key roles to new generations,” President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. [1] The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy makers. Normalization of relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may accelerate or retard the process. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for U.S. national and regional security. To maintain Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned. The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees landed in the Miami area, including 31,000 criminals and mental patients. Today, the United States defines its national security interests regarding Cuba as follows: • Avoid one or more mass migrations; • Prevent Cuba from becoming another porous border that allows continuous large-scale migration to the hemisphere; • Prevent Cuba from becoming a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade; • Avoid Cuba becoming a state with ungoverned spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and others wishing to harm the United States. [2] All of these national security threats are directly related to economic and social conditions within Cuba.
|
Ashby, ‘3/29 [3/29/13, Dr. Timothy Ashby is Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of Trading with State-Owned Enterprises”, http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/]
|
Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and political transformation. President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. ] The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy makers. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for U.S. national and regional security To maintain Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and neighboring countries. a downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island Today, the United States defines its national security interests regarding Cuba as follows: mass migrations; Prevent Cuba from becoming a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade Avoid Cuba becoming a state with ungoverned spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and others wishing to harm the United States All of these national security threats are directly related to economic and social conditions within Cuba.
|
Cuban Stability is key to prevent drug trade and terrorism- plan solves
| 2,567 | 71 | 1,537 | 395 | 12 | 240 | 0.03038 | 0.607595 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,884 |
In 1960, the United States government imposed a full trade embargo on the nation of Cuba. Fifty years ago, Cuba was a hotbed for Communism and Soviet Union collusion – an unsettling neighbor for an already weary post-war U.S. – but those days are over. Fidel Castro is gone, his brother Raul has loosened restrictions on Cuban citizens operating and owning businesses and more-freely travelling to the United States. Raul Castro has said that this term in office will be his last. The Cuban Embargo is an antiquated law that seems more like an adolescent grudge than an effort to protect the United States’ national security. Cuba is a non-threatening, impoverished nation whose citizens’ lives have been maliciously affected by an archaic embargo. Cuba has not been a legitimate danger to the United States for decades, yet it remains one of the four countries that the State Department lists as “State Sponsors of Terrorism” – along with Iran, Sudan and Syria. In this era of hyper acuity concerning terrorism, Cuba is never mentioned. Every year since 1992, the United Nations has voted in favor of the U.S. lifting its embargo against Cuba. In 2012, the vote was held again and passed 183-3 in favor of lifting the embargo. The UN Secretary General’s office provided a report on Cuba that stated, “The economic damage accumulated [by the embargo] over more than 50 years, until 2011, amounted to one trillion, six billion dollars.” The report added that the “blockade [was] one of the main causes of Cuba’s economic problems and the major obstacle to its economic and social development.” The embargo against Cuba is an outdated remnant of the Cold War and shows an inconsistency of American political doctrine towards other nations. One of America’s leading trade partners is China – a communist country that is riddled with environmental and human rights violations. As a purported shining light of world liberties and freedom, the United States’ image is tarnished by the treatment of an island nation that threatened our shores when President Barack Obama was three years old. Every American ally except Israel supports and trades with Cuba, making the United States look like the petulant child of world politics. The issues that caused the embargo were relevant and pressing – in 1960 – but no longer hold up. The embargo against Cuba is no longer warranted.
|
Biles, ‘3/16 [3/16/13, Jonothan Biles is an editor for the Courier, “OP-ED: The embargo against Cuba has run its course”, http://www.pcccourier.com/2013/03/16/cuba-pro/]
|
Fifty years ago, Cuba was a hotbed for Communism and Soviet Union collusion – an unsettling neighbor for an already weary post-war U.S. – but those days are over. Fidel Castro is gone, his brother Raul has loosened restrictions on Cuban citizens operating and owning businesses and more-freely travelling to the United States The Cuban Embargo is an antiquated law that seems more like an adolescent grudge than an effort to protect the United States’ national security. Cuba is a non-threatening, impoverished nation whose citizens’ lives have been maliciously affected by an archaic embargo. uba has not been a legitimate danger to the United States for decades, The economic damage accumulated [by the embargo] over more than 50 years, until 2011, amounted to one trillion, six billion dollars.” The report added that the “blockade [was] one of the main causes of Cuba’s economic problems and the major obstacle to its economic and social development.” The embargo against Cuba is an outdated remnant of the Cold War and shows an inconsistency of American political doctrine towards other nations a purported shining light of world liberties and freedom, the United States’ image is tarnished by the treatment of an island nation that threatened our shores when President Barack Obama was three years old , making the United States look like the petulant child of world politics. The issues that caused the embargo were relevant and pressing – in 1960 – but no longer hold up. The embargo against Cuba is no longer warranted.
|
The Embargo is destroying Cuba’s economy and democracy
| 2,368 | 54 | 1,528 | 395 | 8 | 251 | 0.020253 | 0.635443 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,885 |
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war. Whether Raul or another successor from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S. maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be several hundred thousand fleeing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.¶ Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably.¶ In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism gets more complicated. Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency. The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems.¶ U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)¶ The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China. What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
|
Gorrell 5 (Tim, Lieutenant Colonel, “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” 3/18, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074)
|
Regardless of the succession Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will create the conditions for instability and civil war. Whether Raul or another successor can hold power is debatable. that individual will extend the current policies which will only compound the situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. thousands will flee the island. this time the number could be several hundred thousand flee to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis. the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against this extremism gets more complicated. Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another insurgency. fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the Americas. The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The administration does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model of crisis management. the GWOT will be long and protracted. Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China. What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all or many of the elements of national power to resolve. I can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out?
|
Cuban instability causes Caribbean instability, democratic backsliding, and refugee flows
| 5,039 | 89 | 2,654 | 823 | 10 | 434 | 0.012151 | 0.527339 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,886 |
Its centrally planned economic system has turned Cuba into one of Latin America’s poorest nations and kept 11 million people from enjoying the fruits of private property, free enterprise, and global trade. As much as anyone here tonight, I look forward to that day when the people of Cuba step into the sunlight of liberty. A Half-Century of Failure The real dividing line in U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the island’s day of liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to undermine the regime and deprive it of resources. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with, investing in, or traveling to Cuba. The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Union’s proxy in the Western Hemisphere. But all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, more than a decade after losing billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security. A 1998 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that, “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.” The report declared Cuba’s military forces “residual” and “defensive.” Some officials in the Bush administration have charged that Castro’s government may be supporting terrorists abroad, but the evidence is pretty shaky. And even if true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo would be a blunt and ineffective lever for change. As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro”s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms. If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects. Lost Opportunities for Americans Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. The results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products. Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans. The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports. Compounding our Failures Despite the success of our farm exports, U.S. policy toward Cuba has if anything been sliding backwards. In 1996, Congress mistakenly raised the embargo to a new level with passage of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Known as the Helms-Burton act, it threatens to punish foreign-based companies that allegedly engage in the “wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime.” The law is legally flawed because it allows U.S. courts to rule on actions of parties who were not U.S. citizens and were not in the United States when the alleged offense took place. As a foreign-policy tool, the law perversely punishes, not the Castro regime itself, but some of our closest commercial allies such as Canada and the European Union. The Bush administration has compounded our failed policies by turning the screws even tighter on travel to Cuba. The administration has dramatically ramped up the number of Americans cited for violating the travel ban compared to the Clinton administration. Among the people caught in the government’s dragnet have been a 75-year-old retired schoolteacher from Wisconsin who was fined $1,000 for a bicycle tour through rural Cuba, and man from Washington state who was fined for taking his father’s ashes to Cuba, where the family had served as Assembly of God missionaries in the 1950s. Double Standard on Sanctions Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy. President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted that trade was about more than raising incomes. “Trade creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and those habits begin “to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way to do that.” The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba. In fact, the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine America’s national interest today than either Cuba or China. Chavez shares Castro’s hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to spread his influence in the hemisphere. Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other countries in our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuela’s state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our own energy sector, and Americans—last time I checked—can travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is that we don’t have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio. This is not an argument for an embargo against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo. Cuban-American Politics For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest. It’s ironic that many of those very same Cuban-Americans who support the embargo also routinely and massively violate the spirit if not the letter of the law. Each year, Cuban Americans send hundreds of millions in hard-dollar remittances to their friends and families back in Cuba. Another 100,000 or so Cuban Americans actually visit their homeland each year. These are supposed to be so-called “emergency” visits, although a disproportionate number of the emergencies for some strange reason occur around the Christmas holiday. In the name of politics, Cuban American leaders want to restrict the freedom of other Americans to visit Cuba while retaining that freedom for themselves. Expanding Our Influence in Cuba Instead of the embargo, Congress and the administration should take concrete steps to expand America’s economic and political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted. According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less freely to such “axis of evil” countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban American. Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs. Second, restrictions on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private sector, encourage Cuba’s modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the government. Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit. Finally, the Helms-Burton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies. Lifting or modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below. We should apply the president’s sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas. How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
|
Griswold, ’05 [10/12/05, Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba]
|
Its centrally planned economic system has turned Cuba into one of Latin America’s poorest nations and kept 11 million people from enjoying the fruits of private property, free enterprise, and global trade. As the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to undermine the regime and deprive it of resources The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, Today, more than a decade after losing billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security And even if true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo would be a blunt and ineffective lever for change. As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro”s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. . If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms. If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm good Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. A . The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per year. , U.S. policy toward Cuba has if anything been sliding backwards. As a foreign-policy tool, the law perversely punishes, not the Castro regime itself, but some of our closest commercial allies such as Canada and the European Union. . Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo. Politics For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether We should apply the president’s sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas. How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
|
Embargo undermines Cuban economy and stability
| 13,264 | 46 | 3,511 | 2,137 | 6 | 587 | 0.002808 | 0.274684 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,887 |
The complete dismantling of the Cuban economic embargo will undoubtedly require congressional legislation; however, the president has broad powers to modify policy towards Cuba, particularly in an emergency situation that could affect U.S. national security. [15] For example, imports of Cuban origin goods are prohibited under the Cuban Asset Control Regulations (“CACRS”) except as “specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses or otherwise.” [16] Such authority could allow the president to argue for the modification of 31 C.F.R. § 204’s complete prohibition on the importation of Cuban goods by stating that Cuban exports to the United States help the Cuban people by creating employment and thereby maintaining the island’s social stability. Considering the domestic political constituency and the political obduracy of U.S. Congress, a more realistic presidential rationale for allowing Cuban imports from all types of enterprises could be the protection of U.S. borders during an era of grave concerns about homeland security. Some policy analysts suggest that bilateral trade with Cuba should be restricted to businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e. non-state) economic activity. [17] While well-intentioned, such a policy would likely have a negligible impact on Cuba’s economic development and fails to recognize that commercial enterprises that the U.S. government would classify as SOEs are actually co-ops or other types of quasi-independent entities that are in the early stages of privatization. Restrictions such as this also fail to address larger national and regional security concerns which are the primary responsibility of the president. Although ultimately the Cuban people must freely choose their own political and economic systems, President Obama should be seen as having legal authority to support the transition taking place on the island by opening U.S. markets to Cuban imports. Normalized bilateral trade will benefit the Cuban people and help to provide economic and social stability that is in turn vital to U.S. national and regional security. Such trade must include both the island’s small, yet growing, private sector and State-Owned Enterprises. In this regard, it would be both unfair and strategically unwise to treat Cuba differently from its stated models, China and Vietnam.
|
Ashby, ‘3/29 [3/29/13, Dr. Timothy Ashby is Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of Trading with State-Owned Enterprises”, http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/]
|
The complete dismantling of the Cuban economic embargo will undoubtedly require congressional legislation; however, the president has broad powers to modify policy towards Cuba, particularly in an emergency situation that could affect U.S. national security Such authority could allow the president to argue for the modification of 31 C.F.R. § 204’s complete prohibition on the importation of Cuban goods by stating that Cuban exports to the United States help the Cuban people by creating employment and thereby maintaining the island’s social stability. more realistic presidential rationale for allowing Cuban imports from all types of enterprises could be the protection of U.S. borders during an era of grave concerns about homeland security. While well-intentioned, such a policy would likely have a negligible impact on Cuba’s economic development and fails to recognize that commercial enterprises that the U.S. government would classify as SOEs are actually co-ops or other types of quasi-independent entities that are in the early stages of privatization. Restrictions such as this also fail to address larger national and regional security concerns which are the primary responsibility of the president esident Obama should be seen as having legal authority to support the transition taking place on the island by opening U.S. markets to Cuban imports. Normalized bilateral trade will benefit the Cuban people and help to provide economic and social stability that is in turn vital to U.S. national and regional security Such trade must include both the island’s small, yet growing, private sector and State-Owned Enterprises
|
Embargo creates stability in cuba and is key to national and regional security
| 2,416 | 78 | 1,636 | 358 | 13 | 247 | 0.036313 | 0.689944 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,888 |
Within recent years there has been growing debate among scholars about the possibility for normalizing trade relations between Cuba and the United States. This debate has increased within the past ten years after Cuba began instigating several watershed changes within its macroeconomic policy framework, with numerous liberalization measures. This paper will attempt to analyze the socio-economic implications of lifting the United States embargo on Cuba, particularly in the area of maintaining Cuba’s wide-spread social welfare programs such as free education and health care. I provide several measures in order for the island to maintain these programs, as well as the promotion of economic stability in conjunction with open market policies and exchange rate adjustments.
|
Caraway, ‘03 [December 2003, Rose Caraway works at Teresa Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies, “Post-embargo Cuba: Economic Implications and the Future of Socialism”, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/etext/llilas/ilassa/2004/caraway.pdf]
|
This debate has increased within the past ten years after Cuba began instigating several watershed changes within its macroeconomic policy framework, with numerous liberalization measures. This paper will attempt to analyze the socio-economic implications of lifting the United States embargo on Cuba, particularly in the area of maintaining Cuba’s wide-spread social welfare programs such as free education and health care. as the promotion of economic stability in conjunction with open market policies and exchange rate adjustments.
|
Lifting embargo causes liberation and Cuban stability
| 777 | 53 | 535 | 114 | 7 | 76 | 0.061404 | 0.666667 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,889 |
The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little effect. The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn’t happened in Cuba in the last 50 years.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners.” Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I (legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist prisons for eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.” Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an obscure authoritarian windbag. Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments. In 1994, John Sweeney of the Heritage Foundation declared that “the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickly.” The latter’s collapse, he wrote, is more likely in the near term than ever before. Almost two decades later, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, retains faith in the embargo: “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered.” One of the best definitions of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting to achieve different results. The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant voting bloc. But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.” There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spain’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba. The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually. Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static.
|
Bandow, ’12 [12/11/12, Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo]
|
The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course. Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in C Havana is not the only regime to violate human rights is virtually impossible for outsiders to force democracy. The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on America. O argued that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden the hardliners Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. e told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.” Indeed, it is only by posing as an opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro Unfortunately, embargo supporters never let reality get in the way of their arguments the embargo remains the only effective instrument available to the U.S. government in trying to force the economic and democratic concessions it has been demanding of Castro for over three decades. Maintaining the embargo will help end the Castro regime more quickl The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.” There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo . The administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election. President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the embargo Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change.
|
Keeping the embargo in place gaurentees human rights abuse- lifting the embargo gives way to reform
| 5,500 | 99 | 2,148 | 875 | 16 | 339 | 0.018286 | 0.387429 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,890 |
The harmful economic effects of the embargo 4. From an official Cuban source2, the direct economic damages caused to Cuba by the US embargo since its institution would exceed 70 billion dollars. The damages include: i) the loss of earnings due to the obstacles to the development of services and exportations (tourism, air transport, sugar, nickel; ii) the losses registered as a result of the geographic reorientation of the commercial flows, (additional costs of freight, stocking and commercialization at the purchasing of the goods…); iii) the impact of the limitation imposed on the growth of the national production of goods and services (limited access to technologies, lack of access to spare parts and hence early retirement of equipment, forced restructuring of firms, serious difficulties sustained by the sectors of sugar, electricity, transportation, agriculture…); iv) the monetary and financial restrictions (impossibility to renegotiate the external debt, interdiction of access to the dollar, unfavourable impact of the variation of the exchange rates on trade, "risk-country", additional cost of financing due to US opposition to the integration of Cuba into the international financial institutions…); v) the pernicious effects of the incentive to emigration, including illegal emigration (loss of human resources and talents generated by the Cuban educational system…); vi) social damages affecting the population (concerning food, health, education, culture, sport…). 5. If it affects negatively all the sectors3, the embargo directly impedes - besides the exportations - the driving forces of the Cuban economic recovery, at the top of which are tourism, foreign direct investments (FDI) and currency transfers. Many European subsidiaries of US firms had recently to break off negotiations for the management of hotels, because their lawyers anticipated that the contracts would be sanctioned under the provisions of the "Helms-Burton law". In addition, the buy-out by US groups of European cruising societies, which moored their vessels in Cuba, cancelled the projects in 2002-03. The obstacles imposed by the United States, in violation of the Chicago Convention on civil aviation, to the sale or the rental of planes, to the supply of kerosene and to access to new technologies (e-reservation, radio-localization), will lead to a loss of 150 million dollars in 2003. The impact on the FDI is also very unfavourable. The institutes of promotion of FDI in Cuba received more than 500 projects of cooperation from US companies, but none of them could be realized - not even in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industry, where Cuba has a very attractive potential. The transfer of currencies from the United States is limited (less than 100 dollars a month per family) and some European banks had to restrain their commitment under the pressure of the US which let them know that indemnities would be required if the credits were maintained. In Cuba, the embargo penalizes the activities of the bank and finance, insurance, petrol, chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports, shipyard, agriculture and fishing, electronics and computing…, but also for the export sectors (where the US property prevailed before 1959), such as those of sugar, whose recovery is impeded by the interdiction of access to the fist international stock exchange of raw materials (New York), of nickel, tobacco, rum.
|
CETIM, ‘3
|
The harmful economic effects of the embargo the direct economic damages caused to Cuba by the US embargo since its institution would exceed 70 billion dollars. The damages include: i) the loss of earnings due to the obstacles to the development of services and exportation the impact of the limitation imposed on the growth of the national production of goods and services the monetary and financial restrictions (impossibility to renegotiate the external debt, interdiction of access to the dollar, unfavourable impact of the variation of the exchange rates on trade, "risk-country", additional cost of financing due to US opposition to the integration of Cuba into the international financial institutions…); , the embargo directly impedes - besides the exportations - the driving forces of the Cuban economic recovery, at the top of which are tourism, foreign direct investments (FDI) and currency transfers. The impact on the FDI is also very unfavourable. The institutes of promotion of FDI in Cuba received more than 500 projects of cooperation from US companies, but none of them could be realized - not even in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industry, where Cuba has a very attractive potenti In Cuba, the embargo penalizes the activities of the bank and finance, insurance, petrol, chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports, shipyard, agriculture and fishing, electronics and computing…, but also for the export sector whose recovery is impeded by the interdiction of access to the fist international stock exchange of raw materials
|
Lifting embargo key to economic growth in cuba
| 3,441 | 46 | 1,572 | 526 | 8 | 242 | 0.015209 | 0.460076 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,891 |
Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy After nearly 50 years, America’s cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week it agreed to open the door for Cuba’s re-entry to the Organisation of American States. Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation’s charter that requires its members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports. “Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba.” As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island’s Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what happens in Havana. In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in 2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200 million people in Brazil. According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way. USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports, exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And it’s true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism services, a kind of “bread for beaches”, “food for fun” trade relationship. Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed, which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime. Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
|
Griswold, ’09 [6/15/09, Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, “The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-embargo-cuba-is-failure]
|
Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good for democracy and the economy , America’s cold war embargo against Cuba appears to be thawing at last , the Obama administration relaxed controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans but changes to the US economic embargo are long overdue. The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the island’s Caribbean-style socialism. B rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has been far worse. Trade with Cuba must be entirely commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way USITC estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. , exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year. Advocates of the embargo argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. , selling more US products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars. If more US tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime could acquire them. . Meanwhile, the increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and Americans. which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist regime Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
|
Lifting the embargo makes Cuban’s better off
| 4,421 | 44 | 2,322 | 744 | 7 | 393 | 0.009409 | 0.528226 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,892 |
If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has failed completely. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse-off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects. Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American products, especially farm goods. The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could “eventually become a $1 billion agricultural-export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers.” The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study last year by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms between $684 million and $1.2 billion per year As a foreign-policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro’s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the manifest failures of his oppressive communist system. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms.Congress mistakenly raised the embargo to a new level in 1996 with the passage of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Known as the Helms-Burton act, it threatens to punish foreign-based companies alleged to engage in the “wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime.” The law is legally flawed because it allows U.S. courts to rule on actions of parties who were not U.S. citizens when the alleged offense took place. As a foreign-policy tool, the law perversely punishes not the Castro regime itself, but some of our closest allies, such as Canada and the European Union. Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. President George W. Bush and Republican leaders in Congress understand that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet they fail to apply that same thinking to Cuba.
|
Griswold, ’02 [5/27/02, Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, “No: The Embargo Harms Cubans and Gives Castro an Excuse for the Policy Failures of His Regime”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-embargo-harms-cubans-gives-castro-excuse-policy-failures-regime]
|
If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has failed completely. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse-off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Cuban families are not the only victims of the embargo. Many of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States to buy American pro could “eventually become a $1 billion agricultural-export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers.” The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. A the embargo costs American firms between $684 million and $1.2 billion per year As a foreign-policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro’s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the manifest failures of his oppressive communist system. H If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms. Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Congress understand that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human rights and political reforms in that country, yet they fail to apply that same thinking to Cuba.
|
Cuba is worse off because of the embargo
| 2,847 | 40 | 1,754 | 457 | 8 | 284 | 0.017505 | 0.621444 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,893 |
In 2010, Abu Dhabi-based publication The National wrote a deeply critical piece on the sanctions, arguing that they have“not only failed to achieve their goals but they actually undermined the aims. ... Cubans, it has to be said, do not go hungry because of the U.S. embargo.” Rather, the editorial argues that the embargo gives the Castro brothers something to blame for the country’s economic instability, keeping them in power and achieving the opposite goal envisioned by Kennedy. A 2009 report suggested how much the U.S. was also missing out on by continuing the sanctions. Relaxing the embargo, the report found, could create 6,000 new jobs in the U.S. and benefit exports by about $365 million a year.
|
Flock, ’12 [2/7/12, Elizabeth Flock writes for BlogPost, which follows the conversations taking place on the web. Previously, she was a features writer for Forbes Magazine in Mumbai, “Cuba trade embargo turns 50: Still no rum or cigars, though some freedom in travel”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/cuba-trade-embargo-turns-50-still-no-rum-or-cigars-though-some-freedom-in-travel/2012/02/07/gIQAKaYfwQ_blog.html]
|
they have“not only failed to achieve their goals but they actually undermined the aims. ... Cubans, it has to be said, do not go hungry because of the U.S. embargo the embargo gives the Castro brothers something to blame for the country’s economic instability, keeping them in power and achieving the opposite goal envisioned the U.S. was also missing out on by continuing the sanctions. Relaxing the embargo, the report found, could create 6,000 new jobs in the U.S. and benefit exports by about $365 million a year.
|
Embargo creates economic stability in Cuba
| 709 | 42 | 517 | 118 | 6 | 88 | 0.050847 | 0.745763 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,894 |
The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans’ access to good food, modern technology and useful medicine. It has also hurt the United States’ relationships with other countries — the European Parliament actually passed a law making it illegal for Europeans to comply with certain parts of the embargo. The purpose of the embargo was undeniably to make life so difficult for Cubans that they would see the error of their ways and expel Castro and communism. The United States government has maintained — for 50 years — that it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human rights and liberty. There is a pretty serious problem with this plan: It hasn’t worked. Beyond the fact that Castro is still in power and Cuba is still not a democracy, the embargo has not truly succeeded in sewing resentment into the hearts and minds of the Cuban people. The embargo allows Castro to make the United States and the embargo the scapegoats for all of Cuba’s ills. It also forces Cuba to rely on countries like the former USSR, China and Venezuela for trade. The appalling hypocrisy of the embargo is that the United States nearly always maintained diplomatic and economic relationships with countries like Russia, China and Vietnam even during the heart of the Cold War.
|
Stern, ’12 [2/10/12, Scott Stern works for Yale, “STERN: Lift the Cuba embargo”, http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/10/stern-lift-the-cuba-embargo/]
|
The embargo has stunted the Cuban economy and limited Cubans’ access to good food, modern technology and useful medicine. It has also hurt the United States’ relationships with other countries The purpose of the embargo was undeniably to make life so difficult for Cubans The United States government has maintained it will not do business with Cuba until it learns to respect human rights and liberty. serious problem with this plan: It hasn’t worked. Castro is still in power and Cuba is still not a democracy, the embargo has not truly succeeded embargo allows Castro to make the United States and the embargo the scapegoats for all of Cuba’s ills. Cuba to rely on countries like the former USSR, China and Venezuela for trade. The appalling hypocrisy of the embargo is that the United States nearly always maintained diplomatic and economic relationships with countries
|
Embargo hurts both the Cuban Economy and Relations
| 1,292 | 50 | 873 | 222 | 8 | 144 | 0.036036 | 0.648649 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,895 |
Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and political transformation. Reforms instituted within the past few years have brought the expansion of private sector entrepreneurial activity, including lifting restrictions on the sales of residential real estate, automobiles, and electronic goods. Additional reforms included, more than a million hectares of idle land has been leased to private farmers, where citizens have been granted permission to stay in hotels previously reserved for tourists, and freedom being granted for most Cubans to travel abroad. Stating that it was time for the “gradual transfer” of “key roles to new generations,” President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. [1] The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy makers. Normalization of relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may accelerate or retard the process. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for U.S. national and regional security. To maintain Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned. The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees landed in the Miami area, including 31,000 criminals and mental patients.
|
Ashby, ‘3/29 [3/29/13, Dr. Timothy Ashby is Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of Trading with State-Owned Enterprises”, http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/, We do not endorse Ableist Language]
|
Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and political transformation. President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. ] The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy makers. Normalization of relations is inevitable The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for U.S. national and regional security To maintain Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and neighboring countries. a downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island
|
Cuban Stability is key to prevent drug trade, terrorism, and increased tensions
| 1,973 | 79 | 1,129 | 302 | 12 | 176 | 0.039735 | 0.582781 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,896 |
Panelists noted that the Caribbean has been the victim of extremely imbalanced relationships with the United States. One panelist pointed out that the islands were a minor consumer of drugs but a major transit point to the United States; with the attendant increase in corruption and violence, the Caribbean governments are ill-suited to combat it. The second panelist described Caribbean government policies as being driven by Cold War concerns for decades, leading to relative ignorance of the drug problem, or the framing of it as a U.S. problem. Both agreed on the immense difficulty experienced by the regional governments in navigating thepowerful influences of both the U.S. Government and drug organizations. The third panelist then discussed his work doing network analysis on Jamaican and Brazilian gangs. He provided further evidence for the recurring idea that the state plays a key role not only in combating criminal organizations, but also in facilitating them. He described evidence of substantial political organization support for criminal networks, concluding that governments need to understand these complex networks of criminal and political support if they are to make progress in combating the problem. Many of the questions from the conference participants asked the panelists to address what needs to be done, both by local governments and the United States, given the complex dynamics in the Caribbean. There was agreement hat, despite the impact of their centre cession, governments need to meet the4 problem head on, especially interms of rooting out corruption. One panelist argued for the need to expand opportunity for local citizens as opposed to increasing the strength of the security services. Another discussed the role of Venezuela and especially Cuba in supporting many of these states, and the opinion that this support would continue regardless of the U.S. view of Cuba and Venezuela.
|
Brown and Owens, ‘10[2/12/10, Mr. Evan Brown is assigned to the University of Pittsburgh, Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies, Dallas D. Owens works for the Strategic Studies Institute, “DRUG TRAFFICKING, VIOLENCE, AND INSTABILITY IN MEXICO, COLOMBIA, AND THE CARIBBEAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY”, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB968.pdf]
|
Panelists noted that the Caribbean has been the victim of extremely imbalanced relationships with the United States the islands were a major transit point to the United States; with the attendant increase in corruption and violence, the Caribbean governments are ill-suited to combat it. Th Caribbean government policies as being driven by Cold War concerns for decades, leading to relative ignorance of the drug problem, or the framing of it as a U.S. problem He provided further evidence for the recurring idea that the state plays a key role not only in combating criminal organizations, but also in facilitating them There was agreement hat, despite the impact of their centre cession, governments need to meet the4 problem head on, especially interms of rooting out corruption Another discussed the role of especially Cuba in supporting many of these states
|
Cuba is a major part of the US drug Trade
| 1,925 | 41 | 862 | 299 | 10 | 138 | 0.033445 | 0.461538 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,897 |
It was not only the containment of communism that drove US attempts to oust Fidel Castro from the helm of Cuba in the early 1960s, says Mr. Brenner. The US was also concerned about Latin American countries emulating Cuba, particularly its geopolitical stance in the cold war, and thus undermining American leadership in the Western Hemisphere. Some 50 years later, the US faces the same situation, just a more modern iteration. “What the US feared the most in 1962 has come to pass,” says Brenner, who wrote "Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle with the Superpowers after the Missile Crisis." “We were concerned about our sphere of influence that we had taken for granted.… [Today] we cannot dominate this region anymore. They do not look to us for leadership. Countries look within the region, and to some extent to Cuba still.” After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US turned its attention from Latin America as it focused on terrorism and threats from the Middle East. At the same time, over the past decade Latin American democracy has flourished and the global economy shifted, with Latin America no longer looking just north to the US for leadership and investment, but to India, China, and Russia. China surpassed the US as Brazil’s biggest trading partner in 2009. Most of these relationships are economic in nature among emerging economies. If Russia, for example, once eyed Cuba to buoy its political project close to the American border, today it is inking energy deals and selling arms in Latin America because it finds willing partners and purchasers there. “Russia is going to sell all kinds of arms to Venezuela, not because [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chávez is saying he is socialist. It’s because he has money to pay for it,” says Alex Sanchez, a senior research fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. The flurry of investment in countries ranging from Venezuela to Bolivia helps to further undermine US global dominance in the region, a scenario that many leaders welcome today. Chief among them is Mr. Chávez, who just won another six-year term in office, and his allies including President Evo Morales in Bolivia and President Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Indeed, the anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis will likely provide an opportunity for the “extreme left” in Latin America to express support for Cuba, says Johns Hopkins Latin American expert Riordan Roett. “They will be in solidarity about the survival of the Castro brothers,” Mr. Roett says. 'A linchpin' in the region That kind of defiance – showing respect for a nation that for so long the US has considered a thorn in its side – would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. Before the Cuban missile crisis, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the US pressured Latin American countries to suspend Cuba’s membership from the Organization of American States (OAS). At the same time, Cuba signed onto the nonaligned movement, and Brenner says it was that move that the US feared other countries in Latin America might follow. At the time, US thinking on the movement was, ‘you are with us or you are against us.’ The politics surrounding Cuba at the OAS highlights the declining influence of the US in the region. Fifty years ago, the US advocated Cuba’s suspension and was successful; but during the group’s summit in April, leaders across political spectrums said they would question attending another summit without Cuba at the table. “This comes from [Colombian President Juan Manuel] Santos, our most loyal ally in the region," says Brenner. "Cuba was once the pariah state; it is now a linchpin for all the other countries.”
|
Llana , 2012 (Sara, staff writer for Christian Science Monitor news service, “50 years after Cuba missile crisis, US influence in hemisphere waning”, 10/14/2012, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/1014/50-years-after-Cuba-missile-crisis-US-influence-in-hemisphere-waning)
|
Some 50 years later, the US faces the same situation, just a more modern iteration our sphere of influence that we had taken for granted we cannot dominate this region anymore. They do not look to us for leadership After /11, the US turned its attention from Latin America as it focused on the Middle East Latin America no longer looking just north to the US for leadership and investment, but to India, China, and Russia China surpassed the US as Brazil’s biggest trading partner in 2009. Most of these relationships are economic in nature among emerging economies Russia eyed Cuba to buoy its political project it is inking energy deals and selling arms in Latin America Russia is going to sell all kinds of arms to Venezuela The flurry of investment in countries ranging from Venezuela to Bolivia helps to further undermine US global dominance in the region the anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis will likely provide an opportunity for the “extreme left” in Latin America to express support for Cuba the US pressured Latin American countries to suspend Cuba’s membership from the Organization of American States The politics surrounding Cuba at the OAS highlights the declining influence of the US in the region Cuba was once the pariah state; it is now a linchpin for all the other countries.”
|
Chinese and Russian engagement in Latin America have allowed them to take over the American sphere of influence, engaging Cuba is key to reverse the trend
| 3,627 | 154 | 1,302 | 608 | 26 | 222 | 0.042763 | 0.365132 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,898 |
The Red Dragon takes another wide step of not only flexing its muscles in Asia, but now wishes to supplant Russias and (former USSRs) forward base presence 90 miles from the United States- CUBA. Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, bilateral trade increased from $440 million in 2001 to $1.83 billion in 2010. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan. Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba. The Chinese threat in Cuba should be the catalyst for the US to establish open and normalized relations, with economic incentives to re-Americanize Cuba, return of American investments and security agreements. Checking the Chinese move in Cuba early on is vital to preventing a strategic Chinese foothold 90 miles from Florida. Allowing China to replace Russia in Cuba would be a strategic disaster. China is dangling financial assistance and investments in order to establish a beachhead close to the shores of America. This is a counter-response to Americas continued military presence in Asia, continued support of Taiwan and recent increased American aid to the Philippines in its spat with China over sovereignty of the Spratly Islands. The Cuban people wish to return to the American fold and re-establish the traditional relationship with the Cuban anchor in Florida- namely the almost 900,000 Cubans living in Florida alone! [4] Re-establishing normal relations with Cuba is a win-win situation and we should not allow inflexibility in our foreign policy to stand in the way. The road is clear, Soviet and then Russian domination in Cuba was a massive violation of the Monroe Doctrine and a geostrategic mistake of Kennedy not to forcibly remove Castro at the time. It is then no question that allowing the Chinese to supplant the Russians, (who now have a weak presence in Cuba in any case) needs to be stopped. In conjunction with the LUKO DOCTRINE (containing global Chinese expansion) [5] America needs to take the OFFENSIVE for a good DEFENSE of our close perimeter security- CUBA.
|
Luko, 2011 (James, Served in Washington DC with the National Council For Soviet East European Research, the Smithsonian Institute and two years as an analyst with the Canadian Department of National Defense, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped”, 6/29/2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html)
|
The Red Dragon takes another wide step of not only flexing its muscles in Asia, but now wishes to supplant Russ forward base presence 90 miles from the United States Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region bilateral trade increased from $440 million in 2001 to $1.83 billion in 2010 China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO intelligence signal sations in Cuba the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid A client state in the making The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba The Chinese threat in Cuba should be the catalyst for the US to establish open and normalized relations, with economic incentives to re-Americanize Cuba Checking the Chinese move in Cuba early on is vital to preventing a strategic Chinese foothold 90 miles from Florida. Allowing China to replace Russia in Cuba would be a strategic disaster This is a counter-response to Americas continued military presence in Asia Re-establishing normal relations with Cuba is a win-win situation and we should not allow inflexibility in our foreign policy to stand in the way It is then no question that allowing the Chinese to supplant the Russians needs to be stopped America needs to take the OFFENSIVE for a good DEFENSE of our close perimeter security- CUBA
|
Specifically, China is dominating Cuba now. Allowing Chinese influence in Cuba is a strategic disaster-a full repeal of the embargo is necessary to crowd them out
| 3,127 | 162 | 1,619 | 516 | 26 | 270 | 0.050388 | 0.523256 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
4,899 |
[*191] Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America, and although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that Latin American citizens and their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. n3 One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. Soft power, on the other hand, can win over people and governments without resorting to coercion, but is limited by other factors. The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, though having one helps, but rather an enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region. n4 In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair America's image. Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region, but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5 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 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, 2010 (David, Yale Law School, working with Koh former Dean of Yale Law and Legal Advisor to the State Department , “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for the U.S. State Department”, Spring, 2010, Harvard Latino Law Review, 13 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 187)
|
Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in Latin America The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and reforms in the region the U.S. must repair its image by going on a diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people, of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America Many of the problems facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S. leadership and cooperation this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America is a potential friend . Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America, having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the region for decades and the Obama Administration, if it wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus test of its own America must once again be admired if we are going to expect other countries to follow our example warming relations with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America, and would go a long way toward creating goodwill
|
And, American engagement with Cuba is key to a spillover to the rest of Latin America and regaining our sphere over the region
| 3,100 | 126 | 1,462 | 511 | 23 | 245 | 0.04501 | 0.479452 |
Cuba Embargo Affirmative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.