Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 54

Neg

AT: Relations Adv.

UQ Relations High
Relations are high and increasing now diplomatic events proves Armario 7/15
*By CHRISTINE ARMARIO, Cuba And The U.S. Ease Up On Travel Bans For Diplomats, 07/15/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/cuba-us-travel-bans_n_3601093.html] MIAMI -- For decades, Cuban and U.S. diplomats have faced strict limits on their travel within the Cold War enemy countries. Cuban diplomats at the United Nations in New York cannot go 25 miles beyond Columbus Circle in Manhattan or past the Beltway loop circling Washington without the permission of the U.S. State Department. U.S. Interests Section workers, meanwhile, must submit detailed itineraries to Cuban officials if they want to travel outside Havana. Recently, however, Cuban

and U.S. diplomats have been increasingly, and more easily, stepping outside the once nearly insurmountable fences. On the island, U.S. officials privately say they've had an easier time obtaining permission to travel outside the allowed
perimeter. And last week, two consuls from the Cuban Interests Section in Washington made a discreet visit to Miami. There they met with U.S. companies that offer charter flights to the island and small groups of Cuban exiles to talk about the easing of regulations allowing Cubans to travel and other reforms. Earlier this year, the chief of the Cuban Interests Section delivered the keynote address at a University of Georgia law school conference on the economic embargo against Cuba. Two other Cuban officials went to Tampa in March to attend an event promoting engagement between the U.S. and Cuba. "In the past, they have not had much luck," said Wayne Smith, a former chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and one of the hosts of the Tampa conference, titled, "Rapprochement with Cuba: Good for Tampa, Good for Florida, Good for America." "The

State Department usually said no," Smith said. "But in this case, it was, `Yes.' And I would say a somewhat different tone. A more positive one." The travel is part of a larger, slow-moving thaw between the two countries and comes as both prepare for a sit-down talk on migration issues on Wednesday. Cuba and the U.S. held talks last
month on resuming direct mail service. A U.S. federal judge allowed a Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island in May. And Cuba recently decided to let an American doctor examine jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross. Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, described the moves as "cautious steps." "If

the overall purpose is to find out whether the Cubans are interested in a serious relationship, I think we'll soon find the answer is yes," he said. "And then it will be better to proceed to some larger issues as well." The U.S. and Cuba
do not have embassies in each other's countries; diplomatic relations between the Soviet-era foes deteriorated after the 1959 communist revolution. But since 1977, both countries have operated Interests Sections under the legal protection of the Swiss embassies. In the thick of the Cold War, both countries put restrictions on how far diplomats could move outside their respective capitals. "I think there was a fear of espionage, so therefore, you want to keep your diplomats from traveling so widely that it's hard to follow what they may be up to," Pastor said. Whether that concern exists now depends on who you ask. "They are not a military rival to the U.S.," Pastor said. "They are not about to spring a surprise attack on the United States. There's no real military reason for them to do the spying." Cuban-American Republican U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida said the threat remains. "While a U.S. citizen languishes in a Castro jail on trumped-up charges, the tyranny's spies are allowed to visit Miami to further advance their espionage activities," she said.

Relations on the rise Gleaner 13


*The Gleaner, Warmer temperature in Cuba-US relations, June 24 2013, http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20130624/news/news91.html] They've hardly become allies, but Cuba

and the United States (US) have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the horizon. Sceptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times
before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits. In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a US federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed US government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island. Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings. Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publicly accusing them of being CIA frontmen. Today, US diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers. Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently travelled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials - a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted

visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president. "These

recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real
progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."

No Solvency TL Not Key


No Solvency Terror List not key Cave 2011
*Damien Cave, Americans And Cubans Still Mired In Distrust, The New York Times, September 16 2011, lexis] MEXICO CITY -- Bill Richardson had chits to offer Cuban officials in Havana this week if they released Alan Gross, the American

Richardson, who has negotiated Department approval to present at least two things, said four people with knowledge of the negotiations. One was a process for removing Cuba from the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The Obama administration was also willing to waive probation for one of the ''Cuban Five,'' as a group
contractor serving a 15-year sentence for distributing satellite telephone equipment. Mr. prisoner releases from Cuba to North Korea, had State of Cuban agents accused of espionage in the United States are known on the island, so he could go home after he leaves prison next month. But

it was not enough. Mr. Richardson was not even allowed to see Mr. Gross, and when he left Havana on of the Cuban government ''do not seem to really want warmer relations.'' That brand of bitterness is once again the modus operandi for United States-Cuba relations. American officials and experts say that Mr. Richardson's failed trip was just the latest in a series of misunderstandings, missteps and perceived slights showing that both countries, after a moment of warmth, have slipped back into a 50-year-old pattern of cold distrust. ''Neither side has shown the slightest interest in learning from experience and have demonstrated repeatedly the tragic way in which both sides are condemned to repeat their mistakes,'' said Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University who advises former President Jimmy Carter on Latin America. ''It's not just the Obama people. It's the new people under Raul Castro.'' This is not what either side expected. President Obama campaigned for greater engagement with Cuba,
Wednesday, he was angry and disappointed, concluding that elements boldly telling a Miami audience in May 2008 that he would be open to meeting with Mr. Castro and forging warmer relations. Four months after he took office, he headed in that direction, abandoning longstanding restrictions on the ability of Cuban-Americans to visit the island and send money to relatives. The Cuban government responded quickly. Meetings with American officials became more common during the first year of the Obama administration, including a gathering in Havana with the highest-ranking State Department official to visit Cuba since 2002. Cuba also eliminated a 10 percent tax on remittances that had galled Cuban-Americans sending money to their families. But the Gross affair cast doubt into the relationship. A contractor for a company financed by the United States Agency for International Development, Mr. Gross was arrested in December 2009. Cuba charged him with crimes against the state for delivering banned equipment as part of a semicovert program aimed at weakening the Cuban government. The arrest sent a chill through the diplomatic corps of both countries. The Cuban government has complained for years about ''democracy programs'' it says subvert its authority and sovereignty. Still, American officials said they did not expect a protracted affair. Indeed, relations were still good enough a month later to lay the groundwork for what some officials now see as a lost opportunity -- a jointly run medical clinic in Haiti. The idea emerged soon after the earthquake that flattened Haiti's capital, Portau-Prince, in January 2010. Cuba quickly approved an American request to fly victims to Florida through Cuban airspace, and the country's doctors won accolades from American officials. That led to the idea for a more formal relationship and a new hospital for rural Haiti -- in an area later ravaged by cholera. It was to be built and supplied with American aid, but staffed with Cuban doctors. According to current and former American officials, discussions moved smoothly over several months and were nearly complete when old sensitivities emerged. ''First the

Cubans said, 'We want to do this but you have to stop your efforts to recruit our medical brigades,' '' said one American official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The
Cubans were angered by a little-known program, started by President George W. Bush and continued by Mr. Obama, that assists Cuban doctors looking to defect, said several American officials. Then, after

the Obama administration signaled

that it would not eliminate the program, Cuban officials were further incensed by an event at which they believed
their country's doctors were not given proper credit for their work in Haiti. Finally, just days before the agreement was to be signed,

the Cuban government demanded that a second clinic be built in Port-au-Prince, at a cost of several million dollars. That killed the deal. And from there, the relationship has continued to wither. American officials say the
Cubans missed an opportunity this year, when the White House and Senator John Kerry pushed to cut money for the democracy programs. If Cuba had released Mr. Gross then, officials said, the programs would have become less about weakening Cuba's government and more about building civil society. Instead, Congress kept them largely intact. For some time now, American officials said, Cuba has seemed uninterested in letting Mr. Gross go. The island of 11 million people is in the midst of its largest economic overhaul since the end of the Soviet Union -- with a major drive toward private enterprise -- and many Cuba experts believe that the country's officials are engaged in an ideological war over how far and fast to go. Relations

with the United States appear to have become secondary to domestic concerns, some argue. Or, they say, hard-liners seem
to be winning the argument on foreign relations. So while Mr. Richardson traveled with encouragement from the State Department, on what was officially labeled a private trip, several government officials said they were not surprised that his effort

failed. Mr. Richardson said that he had been invited, and that he had expected at least a meeting with Mr. Gross. Josefina Vidal Ferreiro, the Cuban Foreign Ministry's head of North American affairs, said Mr. Richardson had gone to Cuba ''on his own initiative.'' She did not discuss the broader strain in relations. But signaling that removal

from the terrorism list and a minor change

in the sentence of an accused Cuban spy was not sufficient, she said the release of Mr. Gross ''was never on the table.'' And it may not be anytime soon. One thing that might move Cuba, said an official who has negotiated the issue, is if the European Union changes its common policy limiting relations with Cuba because of human rights concerns. But he and other American officials said that until Cuba released Mr. Gross, Cuba would continue to be isolated. For now, his release -- along with many Cuba -- appears to

issues involving be caught in an echo chamber of grievance shaped by decades of failed attempts at warmer United States-Cuba relations.

No Solvency Alt Causes


US-Cuban relations are non-existent Embargo, Gross, and Castro antiAmericanism Hansen 13 Associate director at the Council for Foreign Relations, has written for numerous prestigious newspapers
including the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times (Stephanie Hansen, U.S.-Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 1/31/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113) // EO

What is the status of U.S.-Cuba relations? They are virtually nonexistent. There is a U.S. mission in Havana, Cuba's capital, but it has minimal communication with the Cuban government. Since 1961, the official U.S. policy toward Cuba has been two-pronged: economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. The George W. Bush administration strongly enforced the embargo and increased travel restrictions. Americans
with immediate family in Cuba could visit once every three years for a maximum of two weeks, while family remittances to Cuba were reduced from $3,000 to just $300 in 2004. However, in April 2009, President Obama eased some of these policies. He went further in 2011 to undo many of the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, thus allowing U.S. citizens to send remittances to non-family members in Cuba and to travel to Cuba for educational or religious purposes. Congress amended the trade embargo in 2000 to allow agricultural exports from the United States to Cuba. In 2008, U.S. companies exported roughly $710 million worth of food and agricultural products to the island nation, according to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. However, that number fell by about 50 percent in 2012. Total agricultural exports since 2001 reached $3.5 billion

. Tension between Cuba and the United States flared in December 2009 with Cuba's arrest of Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who traveled to the country to deliver communications equipment and arrange Internet access for its Jewish community. Cuban authorities alleged Gross was attempting to destabilize the Cuban regime through a USAID-sponsored "democracy promotion" program, and he was subsequently sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Despite initial optimism over Obama's election, Cuban politicians and citizens are less hopeful of a positive relationship developing between the two countries. Ral and Fidel Castro have both criticized the Obama administration. In a 2009 speech, Ral Castroaccused the United States of "giving new breath to open and undercover subversion against Cuba."
as of February 2012. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas have all brokered agricultural deals with Cuba in recent years

No improvement toward Cuba-U.S. relations can be made until Gross is released. Riechmann, 7/17/2013, Reporter for the Associated Press
(Debbie, US and Cuba discuss migration issues, US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2013/07/17/us-and-cuba-discuss-migration-issues)
Migration issues headlined talks on Wednesday between the U.S. and Cuba, yet long-standing

disputes threaten

efforts to thaw relations between the Cold War enemies. In the one-day talks, Cuba repeated its opposition
to the United States' so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy in which Cuban refugees reaching American soil are allowed to stay while those stopped at sea are sent home. Cuba says the policy urges its citizens to try to flee the island. "Alien smuggling could not be eradicated nor a legal, safe and orderly migration between the two countries could be achieved as long as the wet-foot, dry-foot policy and the Cuban Adjustment Act, which encourage illegal migration and irregular entries of Cuban citizens into the United States, remain in force," the delegation said in a statement. The act lets islanders who reach the United States stay and fast-tracks them for residency. American

officials reiterated their call for the immediate release of a US Agency for International Development worker, Alan Gross, imprisoned in Cuba since Dec. 3, 2009. Gross was working on a USAID democracy-building program when he was arrested. Washington has said repeatedly that no major improvement in relations can occur until he is released . The migration
talks were announced last month after Havana and Washington wrapped up separate negotiations aimed at restarting direct mail service, which has been suspended since 1963. Discussions about migration and mail along with the relaxation of travel and remittance rules for Cuban Americans appeared to signal a thaw in chilly relations.

Fundamental incompatibility in political views prevents US/Cuban relations Hansen 13 Associate director at the Council for Foreign Relations, has written for numerous
prestigious newspapers including the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times

(Stephanie Hansen, U.S.-Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 1/31/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113) // EO What is the main obstacle in U.S.-Cuban relations? A fundamental incompatibility of political views stands in the way of improving U.S.-Cuban relations, experts say. While experts say the United States wants regime change, "the most important objective of the Cuban government is to remain in power at all costs," says Felix Martin, an assistant professor at Florida International University's Cuban Research Institute. Fidel Castro has been an inspiration for Latin American leftists such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, who have challenged U.S. policy in the region.

Alt causes prevent relations Human rights violations, guantanomo, and Cuban exile community Hansen 13 Associate director at the Council for Foreign Relations, has written for numerous
prestigious newspapers including the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times (Stephanie Hansen, U.S.-Cuba Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 1/31/13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113) // EO What are the issues preventing normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations? Experts say these issues include: Human rights violations. In March 2003, the Cuban government arrested seventy-five dissidents and journalists, sentencing them to prison terms of up to twenty-eight years on charges of conspiring with the United States to overthrow the state. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, a Havana-based nongovernmental group, reports that the government has in recent years resorted to other tactics besides prison --such as firings from state jobs and intimidation on the street-- to silence opposition figures. A 2005 UN Human Rights Commission vote condemned Cuba's human rights record, but the country was elected to the new UN Human Rights Council in 2006. Guantanamo Bay. Cuba indicated after 9/11 that it would not object if the United States brought prisoners to Guantanamo Bay. However, experts such as Sweig say Cuban officials have since seized on the U.S. prison camp--where hundreds of terror suspects have been detained--as a "symbol of solidarity" with the rest of the world against the United States. Although Obama ordered Guantanamo to be closed by January 22, 2010, the facility remains open as of January 2013, and many analysts say it is likely to stay in operation for an extended period. Cuban exile community. The Cuban-American community in southern Florida traditionally has heavily influenced U.S. policy with Cuba. Both political parties fear alienating a strong voting bloc in an important swing state in presidential elections.

The intercepted arms ship has destroyed any chance for relations and tanked Cuban credibility WSJ 7/17 Wall Street Journal (North Korean Ship Yields Worrisome Cargo, Wall Street
Journal, 7/17/13, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578609271480454176.html) //EO Panamanian authorities detained a North Korean-flagged ship and its crew as they headed for North Korea from Cuba carrying what U.S. officials suspect are components of a surface-to-air missile system. U.S. officials said the intercepted cargo is of potential worry if it indicates a growing bilateral arms trade between North Korea and Cuba. Analysts said Cuba's role in the arms shipment could derail efforts to improve relations with the U.S . Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli on Monday
night said intelligence information had indicated the North Korean-flagged Chong Chon Gang might be carrying drugs, but that "containers with sophisticated

missiles" were found under containers of sugar. U.S. officials later

said that according to preliminary information, there were no missiles aboard the ship. Late Tuesday, Cuba's foreign ministry said the vessel, which was carrying 10,000 tons of sugar, was also loaded with 240 metric tons of "obsolete defensive weapons" built in the mid-20th century. These included nine

disassembled missiles, two MiG-21 Bis jet fighters, and two disassembled antiaircraft missile complexes, "to be repaired and returned to Cuba." Cuba said the
shipment of these weapons to North Korea is "supported by the need to maintain our defensive capacity in order to preserve national sovereignty." It wasn't clear if Cuba's acknowledgment of its ownership of the weapons would be enough to quell the controversy. Panama's security minister, Jos Raul Mulino, told Radio Panama on Tuesday that workers were safely unloading the sensitive cargo onto docks. He said the case would likely be referred to the

United Nations, which strictly prohibits unauthorized, undeclared shipments of weapons of this type. "They must be missiles, missile launchers,
etc., something like that.I'm no weapons expert," Mr. Mulino said after taking a look at the cargo. U.S. officials said they believe the North Korean ship picked up a key radar component from Cuba of an SA-2 surface-to-air defense system, which many countries still use. It was an SA-2 that shot down the American U-2 spy plane piloted by U.S. aviator Francis Gary Powers in 1960, according to an Air Force website. The North Korean ship was transporting what U.S. officials believe was the fire-control radar system from an SA-2 used for targeting, U.S. officials said. It remained unclear why North Korea might be importing weapons from communist Cuba, one of its few global allies. The isolated Asian state has had a weapons-export business for many years, shipping missile technology and weapons to countries such as Syria and Myanmar. Some defense experts said they believe the ship may have been transporting the radar to North Korea for an upgrade, a sign the Cubans may be paying Pyongyang for improved weapons technology. The U.S. and Panama had been tracking the ship for several days, suspecting it was carrying weapons and that it was going to try to transit the canal, said a U.S. official. U.S. officials said they hoped Panama would stop the ship to inspect it, and publicly praised Panama for doing so. "The U.S. was aware of the suspected shipment and believed the Panamanian officials were going to stop it," a U.S. official said. A State Department spokesman, Patrick Ventrell, said the U.S. has pushed for enforcement of U.N. resolutions restricting North Korean weapons activities. "Any shipment of arms would violate numerous U.N. security resolutions," he said. Kim Kyok Sik, the head of North Korea's armed forces, visited the island two weeks ago, meeting with President Ral Castro, Cuba's official media reported. North Korea was taken off the U.S. State Sponsor of Terrorism list in 2008 after it agreed to inspection of its nuclear program. Cuba remains on the list. In Washington, Cuban-born Rep. Ileana Ros-

Lehtinen, (R., Fla.) called for the U.S. to return North Korea to the terror list, and to cancel migration talks between the U.S. and Cuba until Havana "provides clear and coherent answers regarding this incident." North Korea, which staged a nuclear-weapons test in February, is expected to hold a large military rally this month to
mark the July 27 anniversary of the armistice in the Korean War. In 2009, authorities in Bangkok discovered 40 tons of rocket launchers and other weapons that U.S. and other investigators said was part of a North Korean arms smuggling network. The weapons apparently were coming from North Korea, making a refueling stop in Thailand before heading to an unknown destination. London-based defense and intelligence research firm IHS, based on images released, identified a piece of equipment as a "Fan Song," or fire-control radar, for surface-to-air missiles of the SA-2 family. "It could be equipment going to North Korea to be upgraded," said Neil Ashdown, IHS's Asia-Pacific analyst. Mr. Ashdown said if the equipment were going to North Korea for upgrading, it would be returned to Cuba, or it could be going there to stay. North Korea operates a lot of similar type of equipment, he added. "These would be for a high-altitude air-defense system." The detection

of the shipment could be a setback for relations between Cuba and the U.S. that seemed to be on the mend, analysts said. "This certainly won't help our relationship with Cuba," said Jay Cope, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, which is affiliated with the U.S. Defense Department. "Cuba says it doesn't do anything on terrorism. This raises the question of whether we can believe them." Added Riordan Roett, the head of Latin American studies at Johns Hopkins University: "This is going to give plenty of support to lawmakers that are consistently saying that relations with Cuba should not be liberalized and that Cuba can't be trusted." Mr. Mulino, Panama's security minister, said Panamanian officials began tracking the ship on July 10, and when it
approached the Panama Canal on Friday, they used the narrow waterway to corner and capture it. He said members of the Panamanian navy who boarded and inspected the ship had to deal with a captain who tried to commit suicide at the time ship was detained, and a crew that tried to riot and keep the hidden cargo from being discovered. Once the captain and crew were secured and taken off the ship, authorities guided it to a port on the Atlantic coast. Using X-ray scanners, they found the illegal load under thousands of small bags of brown sugar, Mr. Mulino said. "

China US Not Zero Sum


Influence in Latin America between the U.S. and China is not zero-sum The Global Times, 5/31/2013
(China, US not competing over Latin America: expert, The Global Times Agency, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/785721.shtml#.UebvCo2yBa4)
Chinese President Xi Jinping heads to Latin America and the Caribbean on Friday, in a state visit aiming at promoting China's cooperation with the region. Xi's visit to Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica and Mexico follows his first foreign trip to Russia and three countries in Africa, Tanzania, South Africa and Republic of Congo, shortly after taking office in March. While Xi kicks off his visit, US Vice President Joe Biden is concluding his Latin America visit on the same day, as he leaves Brazil Friday. Some

media reports described "dueling visits" by Chinese and US leaders, and said that the "competition between the world's two biggest economies for influence in Latin America is on display." Both the US and China deny they are competing with each other. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said last week that the two countries can "carry out cooperation in Latin America by giving play to their respective advantages." Tao Wenzhao, a fellow of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences, told the Global Times that it is a coincidence that the two leaders chose to visit Latin America at a similar time, and that

China has no intention to challenge US influence in the area. "It's not like in the 19th century when countries divided their sphere of influence in a certain area. China and the US' involvement in Latin America is not a zero-sum game," Tao said, explaining that it is a good thing for Latin America. Chinese and US leaders visit Latin America out of their respective strategic needs, Tao said. All countries need to interact and cooperate with other countries, and visits of such high-level are usually arranged long time before
they starts, Tao said. China has embarked on a diplomatic drive since completing its once-in-a-decade leadership transition with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang also visiting India, Pakistan, Switzerland and Germany, and several high-level visitors to Beijing. After visiting Mexico, Xi travels to the US for his first summit with President Barack Obama on June 7 to 8 in California.

AT: China War


No war China is not a threat and no competition with the US Nolte, 5/13/2013, Professor of political studies at the University of Hamburg
(Detlef, The Dragon in the Backyard: US Visions of Chinas Relations toward Latin America, The German Institute of Global and Area Studies, http://www.gigahamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1305.pdf)
The economic and political presence of China in Latin America has been growing since the turn of the century. China is now a major trade partner of Latin American countries. China is also a major investor in the region and quite recently also became an important lender as well as, in some cases, a major supplier of military equipment. Analysis The United States has to react to the dragon in the backyard given that the Western Hemisphere has traditionally been a US zone of inuence, and that Latin America is still a major US export market and destination of US investments. Since 20042005, politicians and think tanks have recurrently

discussed the implications of the growing Chinese presence in Latin America for US interests and foreign policy. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration saw/sees China as a major threat in Latin America. This was also the position of the majority of analysts linked to dierent US think tanks. Chinas interests in Latin America are mainly economic namely, trade and access to natural resources. some observers see a competition for scarce resources in Latin America, others emphasize the economic potentials and benets of Chinese investments to explore new deposits in Latin America. s important than its indirect impact: Latin American countries including those with strained ties with the United States can act more independently,
consequently reducing the United States leverage to inuence their policies. cooperation with Latin America have not been seen as a threat to US strategic interests. Only se weapon sales to and military

in extraordinary circumstances, such as a military confrontation in other world regions, would Chinas presence in Latin America be seen as a direct threat to US security interests.

AT: Influence/Credibility/Soft Power

UQ High Now
U.S. soft power high among other nationsstudies prove Kampf, 2009, director of communications for the U.S. Agency for International Development
(David, 3/10/2009, Soft Power, Foreign Policy Association, http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/03/10/soft-power/)
When assessing the worlds rising powers, we often focus on the most evident forms of strength military, economic and diplomatic. But, does a countrys soft power impact the global balance of power? The term soft power was coined by Joseph S. Nye Jr., a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School (and rumored new United States Ambassador to Japan). Power is the ability to influence the actions of others and soft power is the power of attraction (as opposed to coercion or payment). Culture, moral and social values and legitimate policies provide countries with authority. A phrase popular in the new Obama administration is smart power, the balance of hard and soft capabilities. Following

the rise of anti-Americanism and disproportionate use of hard power, one might expect the soft power of the United States to be at an all-time low. Apparently not in Asia. A recent survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs surprisingly found that the United States is the regions undisputed soft-power leader. Thomas Wright from the Chicago Council commented that the center of gravity in international politics is moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The United States is the leading source of soft power in Asia. Despite Chinas rise, the US outpolled the emerging giant in every country surveyed. The United States ranks first in terms of overall soft power in China, Japan, and South Korea, and second (next to Japan) in Indonesia and Vietnam. All countries rank the United States above China in soft power.

No Solvency
No solvency direct attempts to increase soft power fail Cull, 6/14/13, professor of Public Diplomacy and director of the Masters Program in Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California.
(Nicholas J., Why projecting soft power is so hard to do, Russia Direct, http://www.russia direct.org/content/why-projecting-soft-power-so-hard-do)
Since at least the days of Alexander the Great, rulers have understood that their power will be measured by their reputation as well as their capacity to physically compel. Today we

use the term soft power to define attempts by powerful figures and countries to shape others perceptions of them. In earlier times, it was known as image, face
or prestige. Contemporary soft power, however, is different from its predecessors in more than name: it now underlies any fundamental understanding of international relations, a shift brought about by the key role of communication in our lives. Today, nations are perpetually in the glare of the media spotlight. Global political discourse has become a battleground of rival stories online and on screen. Satellites and social media make it all but impossible to wield the brute force of hard power without provoking a counter reaction. For countries concerned about how they are perceived by their friends and rivals, focusing the media on the right stories to project the right image has never been more important or more difficult. The theory of soft power, as articulated by Joseph Nye, rests on the notion that admirable culture and attractive values can be harnessed to the ends of foreign policy as power. His book "Soft Power" (2004) was subtitled The Means to Success in World Politics. The

problem is that the quest for success is not itself value neutral: a nation that is too obvious in the way it uses soft power to advance its own ends can end up repelling rather than attracting. Countries too eager to embrace soft
power can come off like the stereotypical Don Juan, whose powers of attraction eventually taught women to be wary. Others, overconfident in their positive qualities, choose the wrong aspect to emphasize and end up the butt of jokes. In the context of soft power, this mockery is leveled against countries whose public diplomacy degenerates into propaganda. A

further problem stems from a divergence in tastes in what is considered attractive. Soft power like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same tactics dont work in every context. For example, the soft power of the United States is rooted in an identification of its culture with the sovereignty of the individual; in contrast, Russia presents itself as guardian of the principle of the sovereignty of the nation-state. Both sets of values have their admirers, but seldom in the same location.
Already powerful states attempting to deploy soft power face an additional challenge public empathy and admiration naturally adheres to those who have suffered. Global outpourings of support for the Dalai Lama or the United States in the days after 9/11 are examples of this. Nations that hope to trade on their success are often met with increased skepticism or mistrust. What, then, does this mean for countries the United States and Russia included that wish to harness soft power in their dealings with the world? First, they must acknowledge that a nations soft power is not kept in a vault at the White House or Kremlin, but lies in the mind of every one of the billions of people around the world who has an opinion about the country. Secondly, they must realize that when attempting to deploy soft power, your opinion isnt important; your audiences is. Therefore, those

working on soft power campaigns must be able to step outside their own cultural context and look at their country from a foreigners perspective. Third, what works for one country isnt guaranteed to work for another.
India is able to leverage soft power in the form of Bollywood movies, which are loved by millions around the world. China has no cultural equivalent; Chinese calligraphy and ceramics will never be sufficiently relevant to a large enough number of people. Efforts focusing on promoting Chinas development projects or spectacular scientific discoveries would likely have more success. And finally, while

there are few moral perceptions around the world that are universally accepted, a near ubiquitous mistrust of power exists. Promoting a soft power narrative that emphasizes success and dominance
in a field or organization might not be as effective as one that focuses on a disadvantaged city, region or group which exist in every country. In the final analysis, soft power lies in the allure one person feels for another. And this is why the most enduring soft power strategies have been those founded on people-to-people exchanges. Despite

all the efforts of a state government to control its image through a soft power campaign, in the end it comes down to winning the hearts and minds of individuals something that cannot be ordered from the top down.

Soft Power FailsNeeds hard power


Soft power cant exist without hard powerhard power is the real key Kaplan, 2013, Chief Geopolitical Analysts at Stratfor
(Robert D., The Virtues of Hard Power, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the virtues-of-hard-power/)
Forget NATO. With declining defense budgets of almost all European member states, NATO is to be taken less and less seriously.

The Poles, Romanians and so on now require unilateral U.S. hard power. For years already, the Poles
and Romanians have been participating in U.S. military missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and sub-Saharan Africa. They have been doing so much less because they actually believe in those missions, but in order to prove their mettle as reliable allies of the United States so that the United States military will be there for them in any future hour of need. As

for the Middle East, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries all desperately require U.S. hard power: If not specifically for an attack on Irans nuclear facilities, then certainly in order to promote a balance of power unfavorable to Irans regional hegemony. Soft power became a trendy concept in the immediate wake of Americas military overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan. But soft power was properly meant as a critical accompaniment to hard power and as a shift in emphasis away from hard power, not as a replacement for it. Hard power is best employed not when America invades a country with its ground troops but when it daily projects military might over vast swaths of the earth, primarily with air and naval assets, in order to protect U.S. allies, world trade and a liberal maritime order. American hard power, thus, must never go out of fashion.

Hard power key to soft power Wallin, 2012, Analysts for the American Security Project
(Matthew, 8/13/12, Still a Need for Hard Power, American Security Power, http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/still-a-need-for-hard-power/) This past week, Bruce Stokes and Richard Wike of the Pew Research Center wrote an op-ed for CNN discussing the results of Pews recent polling of Americas stature in certain parts of the world. Their title, World to America: We want soft, not hard power draws immediate questions. First off: who is the world? The countries Pew polled do not reflect a number of regions where U.S. hard power is

becoming more important and more desired. This includes countries in the South China Sea, such as the Philippines, which recently reaffirmed its defense agreement with the U.S. in case of a Chinese attack. Chinas increasing expeditionary military capability in this region cannot be countered with soft power alone. In this case, hard power resources and treaties (like Law of the Sea) create a bed from which soft power can grow in this region. Their combined use, often referred to as smart power, ultimately decreases the likelihood of conflict. Furthermore, considering American support for the Libyan rebels last yearand now calls for support from elements of the Syrian rebelshard power is clearly still a desired trait from the U.S. It can also be argued that the appropriate application of hard power resources can provide soft power benefits. When people overseas face a threat, a hard power commitment from the U.S. can have immediate and sometimes long-term positive ramificationsthough the full range of consequences must be considered. That is not to argue that soft power is useless, but rather that it has its limitsespecially when another actor is applying a hard power strategy. Of
course, the Pew polling does indicate important things for the U.S. to consider for the course of its foreign policy. One soft power area that the U.S. consistently ranks highly in is science and technology, and one that America should strive even harder to leverage. This months landing of the Mars Curiosity rover is a demonstration of why the U.S. is so admired in this area. Interestingly, according to Pews polling, in certain Middle Eastern countries American business practices are also generally admired. Would more

soft power be nice? Yes, but the realities of our world dictate that hard power is not on its way out any time soon.

Soft Power FailsIraq


War in Iraq proves that United States soft power is inefficient Liaropoulos, 11 PhD Senior Analysts for Research Institute for European and American
Studies
(Andrew, Being Hard on Soft Power, Research Institute for European and America Studies, http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/transatlantic-studies/1519-being-hard-on-soft-power.html)

The lack of a clear conceptual framework on soft power is evident when the latter is translated into public diplomacy and strategic communication. The way soft power campaigns are
conducted depends on the nature of the state that exercises soft power, the type of message that is transmitted and the nature of the target.

Recent cases of soft power operations highlight the fact that successful application of soft power is rather limited. In Iraq, the United States were unable to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. The vast majority of the population was against the U.S military occupation and this had a profound effect in the duration and intensity of the counterinsurgency campaign. The Coalition Forces failed to communicate their message successfully. The reasons for this failure lay in the nature of both the messenger (U.S / Coalition Forces) and the target (Iraqis). The U.S in general lacked credibility in the Arab World and the Iraqis were very skeptical of Washingtons intention. The U.S lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi populace and in certain cases even lost the trust of some of their allies. After years of totalitarianism Iraqis were ill-equipped to value the credibility of
information and it was difficult for the Coalition Forces to counter misinformation in a society that is not culturally receptive to such messages. In addition, the U.S information campaign had to compete with a rather sophisticated information campaign that took place both inside and outside Iraq. The insurgents were able to mobilize part of the population and provide a credible anti-American rhetoric. Furthermore, the Iraqi populace was for the first time exposed to alternative sources of information. In the post-invasion era, the Iraqis had access to satellite television and foreign news services and as a result, part of the population was alienated and hostile to U.S forces. The

occupation clashed the interest of the Iraqi population that wanted to regain control of their country and viewed the U.S forces as an imperial power that invaded in order to exploit their natural resources. The case of Iraq, vividly demonstrates the limitations of soft power. A serious constraint is that no state, no matter how powerful, can control the information sphere. The U.S did
not have the monopoly on communication and therefore was unable to shape the battlefield of perception in a close society like Iraq. Responding to misinformation, refuting conspiracy theories, filling information vacuums and building credibility is not an easy task, even for a hegemon.

Soft Power FailsCant measure


Soft Power is impossible to quantifyaff cant prove their plan creates enough to access their impact Liaropoulos 11, PhD Senior Analysts for Research Institute for European and American
Studies
(Andrew, Being Hard on Soft Power, Research Institute for European and America Studies, http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/transatlantic-studies/1519-being-hard-on-soft-power.html)
To begin with, soft power was first coined by Joseph Nye, in his 1990 book Bound to Lead. According to Nye, soft power is getting others to want the outcomes you want. Therefore, soft power is the ability to achieve political ends through attraction. In sharp contrast to hard power, which involves the use of coercion and payment, soft power aims to attract and shape preferences. Whereas hard power rests on inducements (carrots) and threats (sticks), soft power rests on the ability to shape the agenda in world politics, based on your principles and ideas.

The sources of soft power are culture, political values and institutions. Nye argues that the United States have been attractive to the rest of the world, due to their political values,
democratic institutions and popular culture. As a result, Washington is able to achieve some of its foreign policy goals, without necessary resorting to coercion, threats and bribery. Soft

power has been highly criticized as being a rather ineffective and vague concept. Neorealist scholars place emphasis on hard power, meaning economic and military
power and downgrade the role of culture and values in shaping events. Critics argue that soft power is just a reflection of hard power. States

are able to exercise soft power, only through their hard power. Only states with a capable military, economic power and industrial strength can claim to exercise soft power effectively. Another point of criticism is that it is difficult to measure power in general and soft power in particular. By its very nature, soft power is a relative and intangible concept, that is inherently difficult to quantify. Quantitative metrics can be used to measure elements of hard power like population, defence expenditure, military assets, gross domestic products and the effects of economic sanctions, but it is tricky to measure influence, reputation and cultural power.

Soft Power doesnt solve terror


Hard Power key to counter terrorism Dale, 2011, Heritage Foundations Senior Fellow in Public Diplomacy studies
(Helle, 5/2/2011, A New National Narrative: Three Cheers for Hard Power, The Foundry, http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/02/a-new-national-narrative-three-cheers-for-hard-power/) A fascinating paradox emerges from the news that U.S. Special Forces on Sunday killed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in a superbly well-planned and executed raid on his Pakistani compound. The Obama administration rightfully celebrates the most important victory in the 10-year global

war on terrorism, basking in the glory of justice done to a man who plotted the murder of more than 3,000 people on U.S. soilmostly American citizens, but also citizens of many other
nations. His demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity, said President Obama in his late evening address from the White House. Yet at the very same time, the Administration finds itself contradicting the national narrative it has been carefully constructing since President Obama took office. This narrative is a Carteresque story of a nation in decline, forced toward international compromise and debilitating cuts in its military budget. But it was not multilateralism that brought Osama bin Laden down, nor was it soft or even smart power. What happened Sunday cannot be described as anything but a triumph of hard power, of military intelligence, skill, precision,

and courage. It was also an outstanding example of the United States going it alone. All of the above flies in the
face of the recent publication of A National Strategic Narrative by the Woodrow Wilson Center and enthusiastically endorsed and prefaced by Anne-Marie Slaughter, who from 2009 to 2011 served as director of policy planning at the State Department. Though not an official document, it is certainly fair to say that this document falls entirely into line with the Clinton State Departments Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, with which Slaughter was closely associated. A national narrative (a catch phrase of our times) is the story by which a people understand their countrys role in the world. The American dream is one such foundational narrative of the United States; so is the narrative of American exceptionalism. The national strategic narrative document authored by Navy Captain Wayne Porter and Marine Colonel Mark Mykleby (under the pseudonym Mr. Y) aspires to play a role similar to that of George Kennans famous Mr. X 1947 Foreign Affairs article. However, while Kennan promoted American global leadership in the containment of the Soviet Union, defeatism is the order of today if you believe Porter and Mykleby. In other words, Mr. Y is no Mr. X. Consider the description of the U.S. president as the leader of the free world, a phrase that encapsulated U.S. power and the structure of the global order for decades. Yet anyone under thirty today, a majority of the worlds population, likely has no idea what it means, writes Slaughter. This is a highly dubious assertion. The U.S. in her view is entering into a period of declinism, defined as the periodic certainty that we are losing all the things that have made us a great nation. Given this understanding of todays United States, Porter and Mykleby provide a blueprint for a not-very-assertive future foreign policy posture. The elements of this strategic narrative include abandoning any notion that this country can control or dominate global events, reliance on multilateralism, sustainmentby which is meant focusing on domestic resourcesand cutting defense to fund global engagement. Yet the fact is that soft power (or even smart power) has not delivered the

promised results for the Obama Administration, but hard power has. The Presidents policy of increased drone attacks on the AfghanistanPakistan border have had far more impact on the activity of terrorists than mountains of foreign aid given to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U.S. Special Forces will add fresh arguments for
resisting deep and crippling defense cuts. Hopefully, even the President will be struck by the irony of it all as he continues to bask in the glow of Sundays successful raid.

AT: Nuc Terror


No escalation in nuc terror
Jenkins 13 - a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal (Holman Jenkins, Terrorism Is Blackmail, Whoever Is Behind It, Wall Street Journal, April 19 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309604578433132046531730.html) TA Not for nothing did so many early speculations center on Iran and North Korea as Boston culprits. Both states have made terrorism a routine for nearly half a century. Both have good reason for confidence, over many decades, that such attacks would not bring retribution fatal to their regimes. Would they become less emboldened when they have nuclear weapons? Sadly, there are rational reasons a country like North Korea or Iran might mount a terrorist attack on U.S. soil: to show they are not without power to exact pain, that their nukes are real equalizers even if never used. Especially North Korea, a regime terminally dependent on outside support (i.e. shakedown money) to sustain itself. There
are equally rational reasons why the stock market might take fright at events in Boston that seemingly lack larger economic significance. An

incident that might unfold into a confrontation with a nuclear-armed state has large economic significance. Terrorism in our world is a paradox. Terrorism creates huge problems for politicians and statesmen even if, objectively, the cost and casualties have no impact on the functioning of our civilization. The average American is in more danger from a taco salad. Yet we
intuit the stakes nonetheless. President Obama was pilloried by some for saying to Bob Woodward that "we can absorb a terrorist attack." Not

only can we absorb an attack and keep functioning as a society and democracy, but even in the worst case of a nuclear attack our civilization would probably keep going. Alas,
another point has to be made. As events have played out, the Iraq war appears not to have persuaded rogue regimes that pursuing terror weapons, especially nuclear weapons, is fatal to their interests. If anything, the Iraq war may have done the opposite.

No risk of nuclear terrorism. Mueller 9 Prof Political Science @ Ohio State University, John, The Atomic Terrorist?,
Paper Prepared for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, April 30, http://www.icnnd.org/research/Mueller_Terrorism.pdf

terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists on the issue, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful.It is highly improbable that a would-be atomic terrorist would be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded nuclear state because the donor could not control its use and because the ultimate source of the weapon might bediscovered. Although there has been great worry about terrorists illicitly stealing or purchasing a nuclear weapon, it seems likely that neither loose nukes nor a market in illicit nuclear materials exists. Moreover, finished bombs have been outfitted with an array of locks and safety devices. There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were utterly to fail, collapsing in full disarray.
Thus far However, even under those conditions, nuclear weapons would likely remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb would most likely end up going off in their own territory, would still have locks, and could probably be followed and hunted down by an alarmed international community. The most plausible route for terrorists would be to manufacture the device themselves from purloined

materials. This task requires that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered in sequence, including the effective recruitment of people who at once havegreat technical skills and will remain completely devoted

to the cause. In addition, a host of corrupted co-conspirators, many of them foreign, must remain utterly reliable, international and local security servicesmust be kept perpetually in the dark, and no curious outsider must get consequential wind of the project over the months or even years it takes to pull off. In addition, the financial costs of the operation could easily become

monumental. Moreover, the difficulties are likely to increase because of enhanced protective and policing efforts by self-interested governments and because any foiled attempt would expose flaws in
the defense system, holes the defenders would then plug. The evidence of al-Qaedas desire to go atomic, and about its progress in accomplishing this exceedingly difficult task, is remarkably skimpy, if not completely negligible . The
scariest stuffa decades worth of loose nuke rumorseems to have no substance whatever. For the most part, terrorists seem to be heeding the advice found in an al-Qaeda laptop seized in Pakistan: Make use of that which is available ... rather than waste valuable time becoming despondent over that which is not within your reach. In part because of current policiesbut also because of a wealth of other technical and organizational difficultiesthe atomic terrorists task is already monumental, and their

likelihood of success is vanishingly smal l.

Efforts to further enhance this monumentality, if cost-effective and accompanied with only tolerable side effects, are generally desirable

States wont ever sell nukes. Mueller 9 Prof Political Science @ Ohio State University, John, The Atomic Terrorist?,
Paper Prepared for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, April 30, http://www.icnnd.org/research/Mueller_Terrorism.pdf

terrorist might take would be to be given or sold a bomb by a generous like-minded improbable, however, because there would be too much risk, even for acountry led by extremists , that the ultimate source of the weapon would be discovered. As one prominent analyst, Matthew Bunn, puts it, A dictator or oligarch bent on maintaining power is highly unlikely to take the immense risk of transferring such a devastating capability to terrorists they cannot control, given the ever-present possibility that the material would be traced back to its origin. Important in this last consideration are deterrent
One route a would-be atomic

nuclear state for delivery abroad. This is highly

safeguards afforded by nuclear forensics, the rapidly developing science (and art) of connecting nuclear materials to their sources even after a bomb has been exploded.6 Moreover, there is a very considerable danger to

the donorthatthe bomb (and its source) would be discovered even before delivery, or that it would be exploded in a manner and on a target the donor would not approve--including on the donor
itself. Another concern would be that the terrorist group might be infiltrated by foreign intelligence.7

AT: Terror Adv

AT: Gene Synthesis


Bioterrorists cant use Gene synthesis tech HSNW Homeland Security News Wire (Gene synthesis companies establish Measures to
Counter Bioterrorism, Homeland Security News Wire, 20/11/09, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gene-synthesis-companies-establish-measurescounter-bioterrorism) //EO The five largest suppliers of synthetic DNA will establish common measures to prevent misuse of synthetically produced DNA by bioterorrists or criminals. Blue Heron Biotechnology, DNA2.0, GENEART, GenScript, and Integrated DNA Technologies, which together represent an 80 percent share of the synthetic DNA market, announced the establishment of a common screening protocol that will be applied to every single synthetic gene order. We are proud to announce the formation of the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, said John Mulligan, CSO of Blue Heron Biotechnology. The IGSCs Harmonized Screening Protocol comprises the screening of gene sequences against a regulated pathogen database developed by the consortium and one or more of the internationally coordinated sequence reference databanks, such as NCBI/GenBank, EBI/EMBL, or DDBJ. Amino acid sequences of possible translation products for each ordered synthetic gene will also be screened. Purchasers of synthetic genes will also be screened in accordance with national guidelines. Furthermore, the IGSC companies have agreed to keep all screening, customer, and order records for at least eight years. IGSC companies have also reserved the right to refuse to fill any order, and to notify authorities upon identification of potentially problematic orders, and will coordinate efforts with local and national law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Finally, the five companies will comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing the synthesis, possession, transportation, export and import of gene synthesis and related products..

Counterterror = counterproductive
Aff cant solve US Counter-terror strategy is fundamentally flawed and counter productive Huff Post 8 The Huffington Post (Rand Corp War on Terror is a Failiure, The Huffington
Post, 7/31/08http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rand-corp----war-onterro_b_116107.html) //EO The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead. And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians." In
terms of this latter observation, there is no better case-in-point right now than Afghanistan - the war that both candidates for President seem to embrace as a "the right war" contrary to all evidence. In

Afghanistan, the U.S. military forces should properly be known as, "The Wedding Crashers," with the U.S. successfully bombing its fourth (4th) wedding party just this month, killing 47 civilians. According to the UN, 700 civilians have died in the
Afghan conflict just this year. Human Rights Watch reports that 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in 2007 and 929 in 2006. And, those killed in U.S. bomb attacks are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of the civilian deaths as that war goes on. As the Rand

Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive .
Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy." In the end, Rand concludes that the

U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all." If the politicians take this study seriously, and they should, they should abandon current plans for an increase in U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. military should be pulled out of Afghanistan altogether, just as it should be pulled out of Iraq. Interestingly, the current study
from Rand, a group not considered to be very dovish, mirrors its much earlier study which also declared that the U.S.'s "war on drugs" - that is, the effort to eradicate drugs at the source (e.g., cocaine in Colombia and heroin in Afghanistan) thorugh military operations -- is a failure. Instead, Rand opined, the U.S. would do better to concentrate its resources at home on drug addiction treatment - a measure the Rand Corporation concluded is 20 times more effective than the "war on drugs." Sadly, the U.S. did not pay attention to that study then, and it remains to be seen whether it will pay attention to Rand's current study. Again, (and if you read my posts you will see me quote this passage often) Senator Obama was correct, both as a matter of morality as well as practicality, in calling for an "end [to] the mindset which leads us to war." This is so because war has profoundly failed us. Unfortunately however, the United States, and those running for its highest office, appear unable to escape from this mindset. Instead, they continue to search for military options for problems which have no military solutions. In the process, U.S. soldiers die and thousands upon thousands of civilians are killed abroad. Meanwhile, the stated objective of the U.S., whether it be fighting drugs or fighting terror, is only further undermined. One look no further than Al Qaida

itself -- which evolved from the U.S.'s military support for the Afghan mujahideen in pursuit of its "war on communism" -- as
proof of this fact. In short, we continue to create and re-create our own enemies through our addiction to war and force. It is indeed high time to "end the mindset which leads us to war." However, we as citizens in this ostensible democracy will have to work hard to push our leaders toward this end, for they appear unwilling and/or unable to even begin the process of moving toward such an objective.

Aff doesnt solve Shifting our strategy is a prerequisite to effective counterterror The Week 13 Acclaimed news journal (The War on Terorr Isnt Over: Heres how America
can Win it, The Week, 1/24/13, http://theweek.com/article/index/239107/the-war-on-terrorisnt-over-heres-how-america-can-win-it) //EO
"A decade of war is now ending." President Obama, January 21, 2013 Those words, so simple and so significant, earned the president loud applause at his second inauguration on Monday. But only gross

navet would cause America to fall for the notion that we've achieved a lasting and comfortable peace. Sadly, for many years to come, America will have to grapple with the multi-faceted challenge of Islamic extremism. And we lack a winning strategy . For too long, we have fixated on terrorism in the moment, perilously ignoring the deeper-running currents beneath individual acts of terror. Treating symptoms does not cure a disease. To win the war on terror, we require a plan that combines resolve, honesty, and original thinking. No longer can we tolerate the delusion that suggests that military power and law enforcement alone can defeat our enemies. We need more. The Arab Spring has brought freedom to much of the Middle East and
North Africa. This is good news for America. Ultimately, democracy shapes healthy societies. Where governments are responsive to the aspirations of their citizens, despair is gradually replaced by hope. And terrorist

atrocities are not acts born of satisfied minds. This being said, it's also true that the Arab Spring has empowered political Islamists. So America has a choice to make. Either we engage with new political realities or we retreat into isolation. Engagement is clearly preferable. Take Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Certainly, the party is no guardian of social
liberalism. But neither is the Brotherhood a bastion of terrorist extremism. If we simply ignore governments like that of Egypt, we will inevitably lose influence on those (including Iran) desperate to shape circumstances to their own advantage. But specifically, how can we engage? We could pursue a Middle Eastern free trade agreement. This would help fuel the growth of a regional middle class. It would spread prosperity and the desirability of prosperity across regional societies. It would empower civil society movements to push for greater minority rights. We could expand our cultural exchange programs. With deeper understanding, a more durable trust would soon follow. And we could make it clear that our economic aid comes with expectations. Clearly,

the U.S. can do far more to persuade Muslims that we are a friend to their interests, rather than an enemy to their aspirations. To do so, we should adopt an expansive but honest public relations campaign. W e must point out the obvious, sickening hypocrisies of our adversaries. The central truth of the war on terror? Islam's greatest enemy is not America, it is the extremists who usurp the Muslim faith in order to wage war against their fellow believers. From
Pakistan to Iraq, Muslims are subjected to a daily epidemic of destruction. In Syria, the charlatan emancipators, Hezbollah, are joined with the Iranian theocrats in a brutal campaign of murder against civilians demanding democracy. In Lebanon, Hezbollah uses murder as a political weapon. In Afghanistan, the Taliban hang children and shoot teachers. These terrorists

are neither

agents of liberation nor servants of Islam. And we should make sure everyone knows it. And while we shouldn't hide behind the false pretense of American perfection, we must also challenge the dishonest narrative that argues that America is responsible for the ills of the Islamic world.

The aff doesnt solve- US counter-terror strategy is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive The Guardian 13 - Famous British News Source (US drone attacks counter-productive,
Former Security Adviser Claims, theguardian.co.uk, 1/7/13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/07/obama-adviser-criticises-drone-policy) //EO The United States' use of drones is counter-productive, less effective than the White House claims, and is "encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent", according to a study by one of President Obama's former security advisers. Michael Boyle, who was on Obama's counter-terrorism group in the run-up to his election in 2008, said the US administration's growing reliance on drone technology was having "adverse strategic effects that have not been

properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists". Civilian casualties were likely to be far higher than had been acknowledged, he said. In an article for the Chatham House journal International Affairs, Boyle said the conventional wisdom over the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) needed to be challenged. He said there was an urgent need for greater transparency because most Americans remained "unaware of the scale of the drone programme ... and the destruction it has caused in their name". US use of drones has soared during Obama's time in office, with the White House authorising attacks in at least four countries: Afghanistan,Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It is estimated that the CIA and the US military have
undertaken more than 300 drone strikes and killed about 2,500 people. Administration officials have argued their use is lawful, though the Pentagon's most senior lawyer, Jeh Johnson, recently admitted that the US was

heading for a "tipping point", beyond which it should no longer pursue terrorists by military means because the organisation that Congress authorised the military to pursue in 2001 had in effect been destroyed. In his study, Boyle said Obama pledged to end the "war on terror" and to restore respect for the rule of law in US counter-terrorism policies. "Instead, he has been just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor ... while President Bush issued a call to arms to
defend 'civilisation' against the threat of terrorism, President Obama has waged his war on terror in the shadows, using drone strikes, special operations and sophisticated surveillance to fight a brutal covert war against al-Qaida and other Islamist networks." Boyle, who teaches at La Salle University, Philadelphia, said the government claim that drones were an effective tool that minimised civilian casualties was "based on a highly selective and partial reading of the evidence". He argues one of the

reasons why the US has been "so successful in spinning the number of civilian casualties" is that it has reportedly adopted a controversial method for counting them: all military-age men in a strike zone are classed as militants unless clear evidence emerges to the contrary. "The result of the 'guilt
by association' approach has been a gradual loosening of the standards by which the US selects targets for drone strikes," his study says. "The

consequences can be seen in the targeting of mosques or funeral processions that kill non-combatants and tear at the social fabric of the regions where they occur. No one really knows the number of deaths caused by drones in these distant, sometimes ungoverned, lands." Boyle questions the claim that drone strikes have been effective in killing so-called high-value targets, saying records suggested lower-ranked foot soldiers were the ones who had been hit in greatest numbers. And he also said the strikes had a debilitating effect on local populations and their governments. "Despite the fact that drone strikes are often employed against local enemies of the governments in Pakistan and Yemen, they serve as powerful signals of the regimes' helplessness and subservience to the United States and undermine the claim that these governments can be credible competitors for the loyalties of the population," he writes. "The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries." Last week, a judge in New York rejected an attempt by the New York Times to force the US government to disclose more information about its targeted killing of people that it believes have ties to terrorism, including American citizens. Colleen McMahon, a district judge in Manhattan, said the Obama administration did not violate the law by refusing the newspaper's request for the legal justifications for targeted killings. She said the government was not obliged to turn over materials the Times had sought under the federal
Freedom of Information Act, even though it had such materials in its possession

AT: Bioterror
The threat is hyped due to flawed risk calculus prefer empirical analysis Leitenberg 5 Fellow, Senior scholar, and senior research scholar at the Center for
International Studies at the University of Maryland, author of 180 journals on modern terror threats (Milton Leitenberg, Assesing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, Strategic Studies Institute, ?/12/05, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=639) //EO Five extensive databases were published in the 1990s covering nearly the entire 20th century, and several of these have been updated so as to remain current. It is extremely important to distinguish between the seven different categories of BW-related events that they cumulatively cover: hoaxes, threats, consideration or discussion of use, product tampering, purchase of materials, attacks on facilities, attempts to produce biological agents or attempts to use them, and actual use. 73 These databases were compiled by: Harvey McGeorge, 1994,
covering 1945-94;74 Ron Purver, 1995, covering 1945-95;75 Bruce Hoffman, 1998, covering 1990-98;76 Seth Carus, 1999, covering 1990-99, and since updated;77 and, The Monterey Institute, 1999, covering 1990-99, and since updated. 78 The

conclusions from these independent studies were uniform and mutually reinforcing. There is an extremely lowincidence of real biological (or chemical) events, in contrast to the number of hoaxes , the latter spawned by administration and media hype since 1996 concerning the prospective likelihood and dangers of such events. A massive second wave of hoaxes followed the anthrax incidents in the United States in October-November 2001, running into global totals of tens of thousands. It is also extremely important that analysts producing tables of biological events notcount hoaxes. A not count hoaxes. A not hoax is not a biological event, nor is the word anthrax written on a slip of paper the same thing as anthrax, or a pathogen, or a demonstration of threatall of which various analysts and even government advisory groups have counted hoaxes as being on one
occasion or another. 7

Terrorists cant and wont use bioweapons State dependency, local constituency, international constituency, and group survival Leitenberg 5 Fellow, Senior scholar, and senior research scholar at the Center for
International Studies at the University of Maryland, author of 180 journals on modern terror threats (Milton Leitenberg, Assesing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, Strategic Studies Institute, ?/12/05, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=639) //EO
In advance of the publication of his book, Parachini summarized the conclusions from those studies that provide an empirical foundation to assess the motivations, behavior, and patterns related to terrorist interest, or alleged interest, in unconventional weapons. 84 Perhaps the

most important discovery from the fi rst of the two books was that Upon rigorous inspection, several of the empirical cases frequently cited in the media and scholarly literature proved to be apocryphal. Parachini then discusses several factors that appear to be most signifi cant in understanding the case studies. He fi nds the mindset of the group leaders of the
organization, exogenous and internal constraints, and a combination of opportunity and the technical capacity of the group to be . . . the factors that most signifi cantly infl uence a groups propensity to seek to acquire and to use unconventional weapons.

These conclusions are consistent with those made by another highly experienced terrorism specialist, Dr. Yoram Schweitzer of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University. In a recent conference presentation, he enumerated fo ur factors which he felt served as

inhibitions to the consideration of biological weapons within terrorist organizations: state dependency, requirements of their own local constituency, requirements of the international constituency, and group surviva l. 85

No risk to bioterror Gross media convolution, old oversimplified studies, and empirics Leitenberg 5 Fellow, Senior scholar, and senior research scholar at the Center for
International Studies at the University of Maryland, author of 180 journals on modern terror threats (Milton Leitenberg, Assesing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, Strategic Studies Institute, ?/12/05, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=639) //EO Well before October-November 2001, the spectre of bioterrorism benefi ted from an extremely successful sales campaign. Between 1995 and 2001, the most common portrayal of the potential for bioterrorism
was the facile catchphrase, Its not a matter of whether; just when.134 This proved to be one of the most successful catchphrases since the old soap-powder advertisement, Duz Does Everything. But, of course, it was a matter of both whether and when, or at least it might have been in this initial period. Those calling for preparation and preventive measures certainly believed, at a minimum, that the imagined sequel to whether and when, . . . and with what consequences, could be affected. That was the purpose of the wake-up calls. But whether and when were modifi able also, depending on the policies chosen. It depended most particularly on how the threat was portrayed, and how that portrayal was broadcast to potentially interested parties around the world. Perhaps

bioterrorism is a given between whenever now is and decades hence, but lots of things can intervene between now and then. The infl ated predictions that were common were certainly not realistic. Much worse, in addition to being wrong, infl ated not realistic. Much worse, in addition to being wrong, infl ated not predictions were counterproductive. They induced interest in BW
in the wrong audiences. One immediate problem was the confl ation of biological weapons and bioterrorism (and even between biological agents and weapons). Biological

weapon use had been possible in the entire 20th century. Now the entire subject became subsumed under bioterrorism. That simple switch in language made it easy to transfer levels of state capability to terrorists . Everything became and was referred to as bioterrorism. This wiped out any discrimination , or attempt to discriminate, between the relevant capabilities of state programs and existing terrorist groups as they are known to date. The possibility of incidents involving low numbers of 44 casualties evolved in 2 or 3 years to mass casualty terrorism, and in several more years to Apocalyptic Terrorism. Generic terrorist groups (excluding the perpetrator of the U.S. anthrax events)none of which had yet shown the ability to master their microbiological A, B, Cs in the real worldwere endowed with the prospective ability to genetically engineer pathogens. Yet the resources and capabilities available to states and to terrorist groups are vastly different. If we go back 10 years or so, we can look at a series of portrayals of the threat. A 1997 U.S. DoD Defense Science Board report grouped the characteristics of both chemical and biological warfare agents:
They are relatively easy to obtain (certainly compared to nuclear), and potential users do not need access to large and expensive facilities to achieve potent capabilities. They can be developed and produced in laboratory or small scale industrial facilities, which makes them diffi cult to detect. Also, the technologies required to produce them often have commercial applications as well, so their dual use can be plausibly denied. They can be extremely lethal, so small quantities can be very effective. They can be delivered by a variety of means.135 The paragraph went on to add that A few kilograms of a biological agent could threaten an entire city. Summations of this kind were grossly oversimplifi ed even further. Former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzigs 1997 and 1999 papers contain an example: . . . a kilogram [of anthrax], depending on meteorological conditions and means of delivery, has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a metropolitan area . . . biological weapons are so potent and so cheap . . . the technology is readily available . . . so many of our adversaries have biological warfare capabilities . . . 136 They do have the potential, but they might also kill only few, or none at all. More correctly, not 1 kilogram but some 50 kilograms could kill anywhere between 0 and 95,000 people, depending on the initial population number, the quality and nature of the anthrax preparation, the meteorological conditions, and the means of delivery

if distributed 45 over a city. More

recent model studies by Dean Wilkening at Stanford University have demonstrated the diffi culties in releasing biological agents so that they are infective in large airborne releases. The model studies show very wide ranges of variability, over fi ve log units (orders of
magnitude). 137 The years between 1995 and 2000 were characterized, then, by: spurious statistics (hoaxes counted as biological events); unknowable predictions; greatly exaggerated consequence estimates; gross exaggeration of the feasibility of successfully producing biological agents by nonstate actors, except in the case of recruitment of highly experienced professionals, for which there still was no evidence as of 2000; the apparent

continued absence of a thorough threat assessment; and, thoughtless, ill-considered, counterproductive, and extravagant rhetoric.

Their studies rely on factually false reports and a litany of hurdles prevent their impact Leitenberg 5 Fellow, Senior scholar, and senior research scholar at the Center for
International Studies at the University of Maryland, author of 180 journals on modern terror threats (Milton Leitenberg, Assesing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, Strategic Studies Institute, ?/12/05, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=639) //EO Five essential requirements must be mastered in order to produce biological agents: One must obtain the appropriate strain of the disease pathogen. One must know how to handle the organism correctly. One must know how to grow it in a way that will produce the appropriate characteristics. One must know how to store the culture, and to scale-up production properly. One must know how to disperse the product properly.139 A U.S. military fi eld
manual dating back to the 1960s remarks on the attributes of a desirable BW agent, that in addition to its pathogenicity, means

must be available for maintaining the agents virulence or infectivity during production, storage, and transportation. 140 One should add, most particularly during its dispersal as well.
Two members of Swedens biodefense program stress methods on how to optimize formulations of BW agents as the most critical step of all: They key competence is . . . how to formulate the organisms to facilitate aerosolization of particles that cause severe disease by inhalation. 141 It is interesting that the classifi ed 1999 DIA report quoted earlier in the section on state programs contained a single sentence regarding the possible use of BW agents by terrorist groups: Terrorist use should also be anticipated primarily in improvised devices, probably in association with an explosive. 142 No anticipation of the capability for aerosol distribution was mentioned, no overfl ight of cities, sports stadiums, etc. In published elsewhere, a group of authors from the

a recent BW Risk Assessment Sandia National Laboratory listed a series of factors closely paralleling the above as Technical Hurdles to Successful BW Deployment: acquisition of a virulent agent; production of the agent in suitable form and quantity; and, effective deployment of the agent. This was summed up in simple words as obtaining a pathogen or toxin . . ., isolation, amplifi cation, protection against environmental degradation, and development of an effective dissemination method. They concluded that Even a low-consequence event requires a 47 considerable level of expertise to execute.
143 Dr. Steven Block, Chair of the U.S. DoD Defense Science Board Summer Study on biological weapons in the late 1990s explained the same requirements. A lesson from the Aum Shinrikyo case is that any group bent on developing offensive bioweapons capabilities must overcome two signifi cant problems, one biological and the other physical. First, it must acquire and produce stable quantities of a suitably potent agent. For a variety of reasons, this

is not the trivial task that it is

sometimes made out to be. Second, it must have an effective means of delivering the agent to the intended target. For
most, but not all, bio-weapon agents, this translates into solving problems of dispersal. Programs in both the United States and the USSR devoted years of effort to perfecting these aspects. 144 Unfortunately, a

recent example provides the sort of grossly uninformed description that is more frequently provided to the general public.
Speaking at the Harvard Medical School on June 1, 2005, and trading on his training as a medical doctor as he frequently does, Senator Frist claimed that . . . a few technicians of middling skill using available equipment in

a few thousand dollars worth of readily a small and apparently innocuous setting [could] mount a fi rstorder

biological attack. It is even possible to synthesize virulent pathogens from scratch, or to engineer and manufacture prions . .
. He repeated that this was the single greatest threat to our safety and security today. 145 The remarks are a travesty: . . . a few technicians. . . middling skill . . . few thousand dollars, leading to a fi rst-order . . middling skill . . . few thousand dollars, leading to a fi rst-order . . middling skill . . . few thousand dollars, leading to a a biological attack, and additionally extending

this to synthesizing virulent pathogens in the same breath. To bolster his argument, Senator Frist larded

his presentation with other gross inaccuracies, claiming that During the Cold War, the Soviet Union . . . stockpiled 5,000 tons annuallyof biowarfareengineered anthrax resistant to 16 antibiotics. The only source in the world for the tonnage of anthrax stockpiled by the USSR is Dr. Ken Alibek.146 He has never quoted a fi gure higher than 200 tons, and he has never claimed that the 200 tons was produced annually, or in any single
year. The USSRs anthrax stockpile consisted of a genetically unmodifi ed classical strain (or strains). 147 The antibiotic resistant strain which was developed by Soviet BW laboratories in the mid- to late-1980s was not resistant to 16 antibiotics, but to half that number, and had not yet reached the point of being stockpiled 48 by the time that the Soviet BW program began to be cut back in 1989. Finally, the 5,000-ton fi gure is the approximate sum of the annual production capacities of all Soviet-era BW mobilization production facilities that would have initiated production only with the onset of, or just prior to a (nuclear) war with the United States. No

such quantities of BW agents were ever produced in the USSR.

No impact to bioweapons- Their evidence is exaggerated fear mongering Leitenberg 5 Fellow, Senior scholar, and senior research scholar at the Center for
International Studies at the University of Maryland, author of 180 journals on modern terror threats (Milton Leitenberg, Assesing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, Strategic Studies Institute, ?/12/05, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=639) //EO For the past decade the risk and immanence of the use of biological agents by nonstate actors/terrorist organizations ? ?bioterrorism? ? has been systematically and deliberately exaggerated. It became more so after the combination of the 9/11 events and the OctoberNovember 2001 anthrax distribution in the United States that followed immediately afterwards. U.S. Government offi cials worked hard to spread their view to other countries. An edifi ce of institutes, programs, conferences, and publicists has grown up which continue the exaggeration and scare-mongering . In the last year or two, the drumbeat had picked up. It may however become moderated by the more
realistic assessment of the likelihood of the onset of a natural fl u pandemic, and the accompanying realization that the U.S. Government has been using the overwhelming proportion of its relevant resources to prepare for the wrong contingency. Others see exaggeration as necessary in order to prompt preparation. They acknowledge the exaggeration but argue that political action, the expenditure of public funds for bioterrorism prevention and response programs, will not occur without it. ?Bioterrorism? may come someday if societies survive all their other impending crises. However,

the persistent exaggeration is not

benign: it is almost certainly the single greatest factor in provoking interest in BW among terrorist groups , to the degree that it currently exists, for example, in the al-Qaida organization. Precisely this occurred: Their most senior leadership was provoked by statements regarding bioterrorism and its supposed ease by U.S. offi cials in 1996-97.

Terror inevitable
Terrorism is utterly inevitable Deep seeded anti-US sentiment Lev 12 Founder and editor of Middle Eastern magazine Aliyah Magazine, former PR
representative with the British government, award winning journalist (David Lev, Kuperwasser: Arabs are Brainwashed, Terrorism is Inevitable, Arutz Sheva 7, 10/18/12, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161066#.UerUBI3VDYR) // EO
In 2012, Kuperwasser said, some 800 Kassam rockets, Grad missiles, and mortar shells had been fired at Israel most of them by Islamic Jihad and its affiliate terror groups. Currently, Islamic

Jihad is the main supplier of terror rocket attacks against Israel, he added. When asked by a reporter what Israel whether he envisioned a new assault on Gaza to halt the attacks, Kuperwasser said that it was definitely an option, and the IDF could make a decision to attack if things got notably worse. However, he added, such a campaign would not really solve the problem, which had much deeper roots. They are constantly being brainwashed to hate us, and this creates more and more terrorists. Such brainwashing, he said, was unlikely to be reversed by military means. In that sense, Arab terror , under current circumstances, is essentially inevitable . Meanwhile, he said, terror groups in Gaza were getting more and better weapons, thanks to the fall of
Muammar Qaddafi. Smuggling tunnels were still active, and Gaza Arab terrorists were bringing more weapons in than ever. Advanced weapons were being smuggled in from Libya, among them Sidewinder missiles, one of which was fired at Israel last weekend. Hamas does not look favorably on the recent escalation, Kuperwasser said, fearing a major Israeli military response. But they do not know how to stop Islamic Jihad, he said. As radically Islamic as Hamas is, Islamic Jihad and other groups have now surpassed them, and Hamas fears being seen as the moderate, much as it sees Fatah in Judea and Samaria. The

radicals are getting stronger, and the atmosphere in Gaza is making the residents there even more radical. Hamas, he added, does not believe it can afford to confront these groups, fearing that it will be swept away by an Arab Spring scenario in Gaza if it tries.

The war on terror is unwinnable and our current strategy is counterproductive anyways The Nation 11 Acclaimed Pakistani news source (Winning US War on Terror impossible
Says Imran, The Nation, 6/26/13, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-dailyenglish-online/national/26-Jun-2011/Winning-US-war-on-terror-impossible-says-Imran) //EO Multan PTI Chairman Imran Khan alleged that the foreign powers are giving loans to influence the rulers to use
army for killing the innocent people of the country. Addressing a public meeting held to begin his partys movement titled Hakomat Hatawo Mulk Bachawo here at divisional sports ground on Saturday. Khan added that drone

attacks caused increase in terrorism in the country. If the Parliament possesses even a little honour, it should resign like Marvi, he suggested. He said that the relatives of those, who were killed in drone attacks, avenged the death of their dear ones as a result of which Pakistanis were being killed on either sides. Imran Khan categorically stated, We cant win so-called American war on terror . This is an unending war and it will crush the backbone of the country. Well fail to uphold the security and solidarity of the country, He questioned the rulers working to deliver, saying that what they (the rulers) were doing to end this war. He said that the PTI had been suggesting for the last seven year that the only way to address the issue was to settle it politically. I am offering the government for the last two years that I am ready to hold talks with the militants but their American masters have not given them NOC, he maintained. He said that the rulers themselves accepted that the so-called war on terror caused $ 68 billion loss to national economy, killed our 35,000 people and made another one million IDP but still did nothing to end this war. If the Americans can talk to Mullah Omar, why cant we do with our own people? He said the PTI took to the

streets up to break Nawaz-Zardari partnership, saying their days had been numbered. He said that both President Zardari and Nawaz Sharif were master in match fixing. Both of them jointly ruled Punjab for three years and N League played the role of friendlyopposition. Now theyve come out to befool their voters to prevent them from becoming aware of the fact that that Nawaz Sharif back Zardari, he maintained. He lashed out at PPP and PML-N, saying their days were numbered. He said that the parties currently in power were enjoying rule turn by turn. On one hand their leaders are getting richer while on the other hand people are becoming poorer from poor, he added. He said that the prices of all daily use items registered horrible hike as a result of which 50 percent Pakistanis lived their lives below poverty line. Over 90 million people can hardly get meal twice a day, he added. He blasted the rulers and their associates for evading tax.

AT: Iran Terror


Terror would never escalate Empirics prove Iran is too scared to pass on WMDs and terrorists wouldnt use them Byman 12 Proffessor at Georgetown Universitys University Studies Program, Staff member
on the 9/11 comission, senior fellow at the Brookings institute (Daniel Byman, Irans Support for Terrorism in the Middle East, Brookings Institute, 5/12/12, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Testimony/2012/7/25%20iran%20terrorism %20byman/25%20iran%20terrorism%20byman.pdf) //EO The silver lining is that Iran is not likely to pass a nuclear weapon to terrorist groups except under the most extreme circumstances. Tehran would not be likely to trust such a sensitive capability to a terrorist group too much could go too wrong in too many ways. In addition, even a more emboldened Tehran would recognize that the United States and Israel would see such a transfer as a grave threat and would dramatically escalate their pressure on Iran, perhaps including significant military operations. In addition, the United States might be able to gain international support as almost all states, including China and Russia, fear such transfers. Moscow and Beijing have their own
terrorism problems. While deniability might stay the U.S. hand from retaliation for a limited conventional attack, this would not be so for a more dramatic chemical attack, to say nothing of a catastrophic nuclear one. After an attack using unconventional weapons, all bets would be off. One

indication of Irans caution on this score is that it has not transferred much less lethal and controversial chemical weapons to Hizballah, despite having these in its arsenal for over 25 years. Groups like Hizballah , for their part, would fear the consequences of going nuclear , recognizing that this could lead to U.S., Israeli, and other countries military actions that could threaten its position in Lebanon. In addition, these groups have
proven quite capable in using rockets, explosives, and small arms to achieve their objectives.

AT: Overstretch
Overstretch is a joke America has and can afford its preponderance The DC 12 The Daily Caller Newspaper (Georgetown Prof: US not Overstretched; Our
World Role is Affordable, The Daily Caller, 5/2/12, http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/02/georgetown-prof-us-not-overstretched-our-world-role-isaffordable/) //EO **Card is mainly a quote from lieber... Dont believe the claims by those on the left and some on the right that America is overstretched abroad, says Georgetown University professor Robert J. Lieber . [W]e managed to maintain the worlds most advanced and capable military (including a volunteer army), fight two wars plus a global war on terror, and yet at the peak last year we spent just 5 percent of gross domestic product on defense a figure lower than the average during any of the Cold War years, Lieber told The Daily Caller. The percentage is already on the way down, toward less than 4 percent by the middle of this decade. In short, our world role is affordable provided we make the needed decisions here at home. Lieber, who teaches government and international affairs at Georgetown, is the author of the new book, Power and Willpower in the American Future: Why the United States is not destined to decline. He says he wrote it to argue against a wave of fashionable pessimism about America at home and abroad. Of course we have problems America has always had problems but the focus on our difficulties is short sighted, exaggerated and ahistorical ,
he explained. I do not claim that America cannot decline, but that our future is a matter of the choices we make, of policy, leadership and will. Lieber says that America

has significant advantages that place it in a great position to make the 21st century another American century. Despite problems, the breadth and depth of our economy and financial markets remain unmatched, he said. Our advantages include our high technology, scientific base, research and development, great universities, competitiveness and entrepreneurship. Our military forces and power projection remain unmatched. Our natural resource base, including an extraordinary renaissance in domestic natural gas and oil production, provides a tremendous asset for our economy, employment and competitiveness. Our population of 313 million is the worlds third largest, and we still have a relatively favorable birthrate. Many of the worlds best and brightest seek to come here to make their lives and careers. Our institutions of liberty and the rule of law are fundamental elements in that attraction. And Americas extraordinary flexibility and adaptability are unparalleled by any large country.

On Case DAs

Cuba is a threat
Cuba engages on acts of terrorismneeds to stay on list Hudson, 2013, Reporter on National Security for Foreign Policy
(John, Rubio: Cuba Belongs on the state sponsors of terrorism list, 6/3/13, The Foreign Policy, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/03/rubio_cuba_belongs_on_the_state_spons or_of_terror_list)
In the face of mounting calls to remove Cuba from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, Sen. Marco Rubio (RFLA) defended Foggy Bottom's recent decision to keep Cuba on the list, in a statement to The Cable. "The

Castro regime

sponsors terrorism abroad and against their own people, and removing a country from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism requires evidence of reform," Rubio said. "We have not seen such evidence in Cuba." In its annual Country Reports on Terrorism released last week, the State Department acknowledged that some conditions on the island were improving, but maintained three reasons for keeping Cuba on the list: Providing a safe haven for some two dozen members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a Spanish rebel group charged with terrorist activity; providing aid to Colombia's rebel group the FARC "in past years" -- Cuba no longer supports the group today; and providing harbor to "fugitives wanted in the United States. " "It remains clear that Cuba is the same totalitarian state today that it has been for decades," Rubio told The
Cable. "This totalitarian state continues to have close ties to terrorist organizations."

Cuba belongs on the list- Empirics, FARC, US fugitives, and terror financing Claver-Carone 4/2 Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Advocates, former attorneyadvisor for the Department of Treasury, former Professor at George Washington Universtys National Law Center (Mauricio Claver-Carone, Cuba Sees an Opening, The American, 4/2/13, http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-statesponsor-of-terrorism) //EO It would be an insult to the American people if Cuba were to be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism based solely on assurances of change by a dictatorship that brutally represses its population, defies the rule of law, routinely foments anti-Americanism around the world with provocative anti-democratic rhetoric, and is holding in its prisons an American aid worker, Alan P. Gross. Arrested in December 2009, Grosss crime was helping members of Cubas Jewish community connect to the Internet. The last time the United States relied on a dictators assurances to justify removing a country from the sponsors list was in 2008, when President George W. Bush accepted the assurances of the Kim family that North Korea would not provide support for or engage in international terrorism. That obviously has not worked out well. The Castro brothers lack of credibility alone is legally sufficient to prohibit changing Cuba's designation. Cuba should also be disqualified because it continues to promote and support international terrorism. The State Departments 2011 Country Reports on Terrorism lays out a three-point rationale for Cubas designation as a sponsor of terrorism: First, current and former members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) continue to reside in Cuba Press reporting indicated that the Cuban government provided medical care and political assistance to the FARC. There was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training for either ETA or the FARC. The United States designates ETA and the FARC as foreign terrorist organizations and Cuba
continues to provide support for both groups. The favorite new argument of those seeking Cubas removal from the list is to note that peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC are taking place in Havana. But the United States would need to rescind its designation of ETA and the FARC as foreign terrorist organizations before it could remove Cuba from the terrorism sponsor list. More importantly, there

is no peace agreement or peace in Colombia and ETA

continues to threaten Spain. Testifying on Colombia before the House Armed Services Committee, General John F. Kelly, head of the U.S. Southern Command, provided some perspective: Terrorist groups represent a persistent challenge that has plagued the region for decades. The FARC is the regions oldest, largest, most capable, and best equipped insurgency. The government of Colombia is currently in peace negotiations with the FARC, but the fight is far from over and a successful peace accord is not guaranteed. Although
weakened, the FARC continues to confront the Colombian state by employing improvised explosive devices and attacking energy infrastructure and oil pipelines. Second, the State Department country report says that the

Cuban government continued to permit fugitives wanted in the United States to reside in Cuba and also provided support such as housing, food ration books, and medical care for these individuals. That has not changed either. The FBI estimates that Cuba has provided safe harbor to more than 70 fugitives from U.S. justice who live on the island under the protection of the Castro regime. Some of these fugitives are charged with or have been convicted of
murder, kidnapping, and hijacking, and they include notorious killers of police officers in New Jersey and New Mexico.

Warranting special mention are the outstanding U.S. indictments against Cuban Air Force pilots Lorenzo Alberto PrezPrez and Francisco Prez-Prez and General Rubn Martnez Puente, the head of the Cuban Air Force, who in 1996 ordered the pilots to shoot down two civilian American aircraft over international waters in the Florida Straits. That act of terrorism killed four men, three of them American citizens. Third, the State Department report says that the Financial Action Task Force has identified Cuba as having deficiencies in combatting money laundering and terrorism financing. In February, the Castro regime made a high-level
political commitment to work with the FATF to address money laundering and the flow of money through Cuba to terrorists. There has been no discernible effort since to criminalize money laundering or to establish procedures to identify and freeze the assets of terrorists.

Cuba disregarded the United Nation sanctions ban and exported military equipment to North Koreaneed to stay on list Johnston, 7/18/13, Reporter for NBC News
(Ian, Senators call on Obama to act over Cuban arms shipment to North Korea WORLD NEWS NBC News, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/18/19537132-senators-call-on-obama-to-actover-cuban-arms-shipment-to-north-korea) Leading Republican and Democrat senators called on President Barack Obama to act over a Cuban shipment of weapons and equipment to North Korea, as talks got under way about migration between the U.S. and Cuba. A North Korean ship was stopped by Panama as it headed home with a cargo

of rockets, missile parts and two Cold War-era fighter jets hidden among sacks of brown sugar. United Nations sanctions ban the export of most military equipment to North Korea, though Havana said it was sending obsolete hardware to be repaired and then returned to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that the shipment was a grave violation of international treaties. Weapons transfers from one communist regime to another hidden under sacks of sugar are not accidental occurrences, and reinforces the necessity that Cuba remain on the State Departments list of countries that

sponsor state terrorism , he said. A ship stocked with weapons and missiles was intercepted near the Panama

Canal traveling from Cuba to North Korea. In addition to possible violations of Panamanian law, the shipment almost certainly violated United Nations Security Council sanctions on shipments of weapons to North Korea and as such, I call on the Obama administration to submit this case to the U.N. Security Council for review, he added. Sen. Marco Rubio, who gave the Republican response to Obamas State of the Union address this year and is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the discovery of the shipment should finally prompt the administration to re-calibrate its misguided and nave Cuba policy. He said the U.S. should immediately reverse its January 2011 decision easing restrictions on people-to-people travel and remittances sent to Cuba; as well as immediately halt granting visas to Cuban government officials. Rubio said Cubas actions were a flagrant violation of U.N. sanctions and the latest reminder of the true nature of the Cuban regime. I urge the Administration to take meaningful action to send a clear message that Cuban collusion with North Korea to undermine the international nonproliferation system carries heavy consequences, he said. Like

Menendez, he also said the U.S. should raise the matter at the U.N. Security Council. Both Rubio and Menendez are Cuban-Americans known as tough critics of Cuba's communist government. Their comments, on Wednesday, came as Cubas delegation to Washington issued a statement saying talks with their U.S. counterparts took place in a climate of respect. A review was made of the evolution of the migration accords in force between the two countries and the main results of the individual and joint actions undertaken by the Parties to cope with illegal migration and alien smuggling, the Cuban statement said. It said also Cuba had ratified protocols to prevent people trafficking and smuggling of migrants. U.S. officials said that they had used the meeting to again press Cuba to release jailed American contractor Alan Gross. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence for installing Internet networks for Cuban Jews as part of a U.S. program that Cuba considers subversive. Gross' arrest in late 2009 and sentencing in March 2011 halted a brief thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations after Obama took office in January 2009. U.S. officials have said they plan to raise the issue of the weapons shipment to Cuba soon. Meanwhile, international vessel tracking monitor

IHS Fairplay said that it had established that five North Korean cargo ships had made similar journeys since 2010, including the O Un Chong Nyon Ho, which docked in Havana, Cuba, in May last year.

Cuba needs to stay on the list Supports Hezbollah, Al qaeda, and subverts US counterror in the Middle East Claver-Carone 4/2 Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Advocates, former attorneyadvisor for the Department of Treasury, former Professor at George Washington Universtys National Law Center (Mauricio Claver-Carone, Cuba Sees an Opening, The American, 4/2/13, http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/cuba-should-remain-designated-as-a-statesponsor-of-terrorism) //EO The State Departments previous rationale for continuing to list Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism stands and now new justifications can be added: Terrorism is defined in U.S. law as the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives . The arrest and arbitrary imprisonment of Alan P. Gross for actions internationally protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Cuba is a signatory, is an act of terrorism.
Moreover, the Castro regime has now made it clear that Gross will be held hostage until the United States releases five Cuban spies convicted in U.S. federal courts. In addition, thousands

of Cuban soldiers and intelligence officials are stationed in Venezuela. Cubas presence and control over the highest levels of Venezuelas military, police, and intelligence services not only threatens to subvert democracy in that nation, but it allows those Venezuelan authorities to be Cubas proxies in trafficking drugs and weapons, and in providing support to such extremist organizations as Hezbollah and Irans al-Quds. Cubas close political ties with other state sponsors of terrorism particularly Iran and Syria and its history of sharing intelligence with rogue regimes are of serious concern and, according to former U.S. intelligence officials, pose a risk to U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere. As President Obama himself recognized last month when he renewed the national emergency designation regulating the movement and anchorage of vessels in the Florida Straits (a yearly evaluation process undertaken by U.S. presidents since the 1996 downing of U.S. civilian aircraft by the Castro regime), the Cuban government has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the use of excessive force against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba. To remove Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list based on mere hopes of bettering relations would be foreign-policy malpractice. Cuba must earn its removal from this list. Clearly it has not done so, and, as long as the Castro brothers retain their
absolute control over the island, nor is it likely to do so.

Cuba is a huge threat shipping weapons to North Korea Investors Business Daily 7/16 *Panama Canal Missile Seizure Shows Cuba Remains A
Threat, Investors Business Daily, 7/16/13, http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071613663987-cuba-threat-north-korean-weapons-smuggling-in-panama-shows.htm//CHB] National Security: Cuba, long derided in international policy circles as a basket case and no threat to the U.S., has been caught smuggling weapons of war to North Korea in blatant violation of U.N. sanctions. This is a wake-up call. Sharp-eyed Panamanian authorities, watching the North Korean freighter Chong Chon Gang since June, received intelligence it might be shipping illegal drugs, something it had been caught doing before. As the vessel lumbered into the Atlantic side of the Panama Canal from Cuba,
Panamanian authorities cornered the 450-foot rust-bucket, battled a maniacally violent crew who slashed ship lines to make it hard to unload the ship, and then watched as the ship's captain tried to kill himself before having a heart attack. After subduing the crew, the

Panamanians found no drugs buried beneath sloppily packed brown sugar, but did find defensive RSN-75 "Fan Song" fire-control radar equipment for SA-2 surface-to-air missiles. The discovery, and the crew's behavior, were signs of something big the North Koreans didn't want known weapons smuggling, a violation of both United Nations sanctions prohibiting all sales of weapons to North
Korea and Panama's own laws governing the canal. "You cannot go around shipping undeclared weapons of war through the Panama Canal," declared Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli, a U.S. ally, who tweeted a photo of the illegal shipment for the world to see. It's

significant that the enabler of this violation of international law was none other than Cuba, which has worked hard to convince the Obama administration to drop all travel and trade sanctions against it and which is currently negotiating a migration pact with the U.S. It's time to stop that right now, and sanction Cuba further. The brazen shipment of Russianmade weapons through Panama signaled that little has changed in Cuba a state sponsor of global terror that has in fact been trying to destroy the U.S. since 1962. "This is a serious and alarming incident
that reminds us that the North Korean regime continues to pursue its nuclear and ballistic programs, and will stop at nothing in that pursuit," said House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. "It also illustrates that the Castro tyranny continues to aid and abet America's enemies and continues to pose a national security threat to the United States so long as the Castro apparatchik holds control over the island." It's also the work of a rogue state. And at just 90 miles away, one that is as chillingly close to our shores as it is warm and friendly to North Korea. And yet the relationship is nothing new. Cuba and North Korea are the world's only two remaining totalitarian communist states. The New York Times initially suggested the two tyrannies' relations had gotten closer in recent years as a result of U.S. sanctions. In reality, the nations' tight ties go back to the first days of Fidel Castro's regime in 1959. Cuban-American writer Humberto Fontova posted photos of Castro and North Korea's dictators, dating from 1960, on Babalublog.com. And when Chile's military freed that country from the communist regime of Salvador Allende in 1973, General Augusto Pinochet's first diplomatic move was to cut ties with Cuba and North Korea. Why? Both had infiltrated the country with tens of thousands of "advisers" working in tandem with the Castro-controlled Allende regime.

Although it's unknown why North Korea, a major weapons exporter, is importing weapons from Cuba right now, defense analysts speculate that the weapons may be making their way back to Pyongyang for an upgrade and return to Cuba. That would be worrisome given that North Korea has said it means to strike the U.S. on its own home turf. What better launching pad could it ask for than Cuba? Two weeks ago, North Korea's military commander visited Cuba to a red-carpet
welcome. The visit raises questions as to what the two discussed and, given the threat we see now, whether U.S. intelligence was aware of it. Whatever this is about, it's a threat to the U.S. that requires far harder sanctions from both the U.S. and the United Nations. Are the scales off the Obama administration's eyes?

AT: There werent really weapons


Later Searches Found More Weapons Borowiec 7/17 *Steven Borowiec, correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, North
Korea Missiles: Are North Korea and Cuba boosting ties?, Christian Science Monitor, 7/17/13, http:/www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0717/North-Korea-missiles-Are-NorthKorea-and-Cuba-boosting-ties//CHB] Officials in Panama reported that the ship, which was flying under a North Korean flag, was carrying 529,000 pounds of missile parts hidden among bags of brown sugar. The ships captain
reportedly attempted suicide and the 35-member crew violently resisted Panamanian police as they boarded the ship in Colon City, Panama on Tuesday. Panamanian authorities detained the crew and have asked that United Nations investigators inspect the ship.

OFF -CASE

Politics
Plan massively unpop dems and GOP Washington Times 13 (Washington Times Administration tepid on end to Castro reign;
'Hopeful' democracy is in Cuba's future February 26, 2013 Tuesday LexisNexis) In addition, any serious shift in Cuba policy is likely to run up against resistance from most Republicans and some key Democrats on Capitol Hill. Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat and
chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said the Castro announcement was "hardly a step toward reform or democracy." Mr. Menendez said "repression continues

unabated in Cuba with more than 6,600 documented detentions and arrests of peaceful democracy activists on the island last year,"
and pointed out the ongoing detention in Cuba of Alan Gross "for trying to help the island's small Jewish community connect to the Internet." "Raul Castro says that he'll step down in 2018, but ... there are no free elections in Cuba," the senator said. "His anointment of a successor also confirms the regime's intent to perpetuate a socialist dictatorship in Cuba and deny a voice to the Cuban people through real and meaningful elections." Mr. Shifter and others said the developments fall far short of the sort of reforms that would be required in Cuba in order for Washington to lift its embargo on trade with the communist nation. At issue is the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which blocks the lifting of the embargo unless significant democratic reforms are implemented.

AT: XOs dont link


Opponents of Cuba reform dont want Obama to act unilaterally. Thale and Anderson 13 *Geoff Thale and Mavis Anderson, Cuba, the Terrorism Report,
and the Terrorist List, Washington Office on Latin America, 5/24/13, http:/www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_the_terrorism_report_and_the_terrorist_list //CHB]
Importantly, the State Department will have many opportunities over the course of the year to take the sensible step of removing

opponents of change are working so hard to convince the administration to sit on its hands. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio Sires recently sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking him to keep Cuba on the list. Although some aspects of U.S. policy toward Cubain particular, the embargo and the
Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. In fact, it is because of this possibility that travel bancan only be changed by Congress, there are a number of meaningful actions that the Obama administration could take without waiting for Congress. Removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism is one of the most significant of these.

Executive Actions Garner Congressional Opposition Piccone 3/18 *Ted Piccone, Time to Bet on Cuba, Brookings Institution, 3/18/13,
http:/www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/18-cuba-piccone //CHB] This list is not exhaustive; the president can take any number of unilateral steps to improve relations and increase U.S. support to the Cuban people, as mandated by Congress. He can also expect significant pushback from a well-organized and vocal minority of elected officials who are increasingly out of step with
their constituencies on this issue. (In the 2012 election, Obamas share of the Cuban-American vote increased by 10 points in Miami-Dade county.) He can win the argument, however, by demonstrating that these measures are in the spirit of the congressional mandate to encourage a free and prosperous Cuba.

Empirics prove that executive orders on Cuba garner Congressional opposition Broder 1/5 *Jonathan Broder, A New Obstacle to Any Shift Toward Cuba, CQ weekly,
1/5/13, http:/public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004201640.html //CHB] Overseeing the administrations strict adherence to these laws will be Menendez, in line to take
over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if its current chairman, Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, is confirmed as Obamas new secretary of State. A New Obstacle to Any Shift Toward Cuba Menendez

has demonstrated before that he isnt shy about opposing presidents of his own party on Cuba and Iran, his top foreign policy priorities. He placed holds on several nominations and an appropriations measure in 2009, when Obama first relaxed restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances to the island. Menendez relented only after the administration agreed to toughen the language of its executive order.

Plan Unpop Bipart


Bipartisan effort to not remove Cuba
Ros-Lehtian 13 Congresswoman For FL-27 (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Bipartisan Congressional Group Asks Administration to Keep Cuba on State Sponsor of Terrorism List, Official website of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, April 29, 2013, http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/bipartisancongressional-group-asks-administration-keep-cuba-state-sponsor-terrorism) TA A bipartisan group of Congressional Members (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio Sires) explained today in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry the reasons why Cuba should remain on the State Sponsors of Terrorism. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen: The Castro regime must continue to be designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism as it: supports and collaborates with Iran and Syria, fellow sponsors of terrorism; provides a safe haven for members of terrorist organizations such as the FARC and ETA; offers sanctuary for fugitives from the U.S. (such as cop killer Joanne Chesimard); unjustly holds a U.S. citizen hostage (Alan Gross); ordered the Brothers to the Rescue shootdown resulting in the deaths of U.S. citizens; and continues its active espionage networks that attempt to undermine U.S. interests and poses a risk to our national security.

Plan is popular history proves bipart support Metzer 13 - Peace Corps in Guatemala (Jared Metzer, Pressure Building for U.S. to Remove
Cuba from Terror Sponsor List, IPS News Agency, Jan 25, 2013, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/pressure-building-for-u-s-to-remove-cuba-from-terrorsponsor-list/) TA Well, they are interested in using the case as leverage. President Obama, at the first Summit of the Americas he attended, pledged to open a new chapter in U. S.-Cuban relations and acknowledged that the embargo and U.S. policy had failed. Then he left in place the very policies he had inherited from George W. Bush. Some call them democracy promotions; some call them regime changeexplicitly designed to destabilize Cuba. Which is very, very consistent with the bipartisan approach to Cuba over the last fifty years .

AT: Plan Popular


Talk of growing consensus is made up no real consensus exists LAHT 13 Latin American Herald Tribune (Latin American Herald Tribune, U.S. Denies
Considering Removing Cuba from Terrorism-Sponsor List, Latin American Herald Tribune, no specific date, http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14510&ArticleId=691532) TA State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland rejected the suggestion contained in an article published Thursday by the Boston Globe, which said that several top officials and members of Congress had concluded that Cuba should be removed from the list and had conveyed that idea to Secretary of State John Kerry. I saw that report. Let me say firmly here it is incorrect. This Department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list, said Nuland at her daily press conference.

AT: Popularity is K
Popularity of plan is irrelevant Obama needs to avoid fights
Martinez 13 writer for US Cuba politics (Tony Martinez, United States Cuba Relations Why U.S. Cuba Policy Does Not Change: Asymmetrical Absurdity, US Cuba Politics, May 14 2013, http://www.uscubapolitics.com/2013/05/united-states-cuba-relations-why-us.html) TA Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy beginning with lifting the travel ban. All have failed. Most recently, we have seen the efforts to remove Cuba from the Terror List, a designation that Cuba does not deserve and only serves to keep costs higher between the two countries, also fail. Conversely, we have seen the hand of the proembargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger. Legislation to expand Cuba travel is consistently blocked or thwarted in Congress. Funding for clandestine Democracy programs like the ones that got Alan Gross into a Cuban prison, still continue to be funded. The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and elected six Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to even reach into the White House, the Executive Branch, and establish themselves in gateway leadership positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials and policy makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up Presidential appointments or congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to raw political power. Meet the consequences of distorted politics.

AT: Anti-Cuba Lobby Dying


Even with death of the Anti-Cuba lobby, Congress doesnt want a fight Metzer 13 - Peace Corps in Guatemala (Jared Metzer, Pressure Building for U.S. to Remove
Cuba from Terror Sponsor List, IPS News Agency, Jan 25, 2013, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/pressure-building-for-u-s-to-remove-cuba-from-terrorsponsor-list/ ) TA At a time when the U.S. is best positioned to help facilitate change in the island and to take advantage of the changes inside the country, this continued inclusion is actually an obstacle to taking advantage of that window of opportunity, Tomas Bilbao, executive director of the Cuba Study Group, said Tuesday at a panel discussion at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank here. Bilbao noted the continued influence of a shrinking minority of anti-Cuba hardliners in the United States who fervently oppose Cubas removal from the list, as well as a lack of political will on the part of U.S. policymakers to square off with that minority.

CPs

Congress CP
Congressional action is needed for meaningful change towards Cuba Webber 09 *Alan M. Webber, Introduction:The Case for Changing U.S. Policy , the Center
for Democracy In the Americas, 9 Ways for US to talk to Cuba and for Cuba to talk to US, collection of essays published 2009, http:/www.scribd.com/doc/10323598/9-Ways-for-US-toTalk-to-Cuba-and-for-Cuba-to-Talk-to-US //CHB] The United States therefore needs to adopt a strategy and policies that amplify and support the change within Cuba toward greater freedom and respect for human rights, and that serve and support larger American economic and political interests. To do that thoroughly, coherently, and correctly will require the U.S. to untangle an incoherent thicket of legal and regulatory sanc-tions that do not fit the current context and do not serve U.S. interests. Because much of the current intellectual and political mess has been enacted by the Congress into law, it will take corrective action by the Congress to fix it, action that
Change within Cuba will certainly come within the existing sys-tem. 16 should start by repealing the ban on legal travel to Cuba by all Americans.