[File Name]

1/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Case Updates

1/29

[File Name]
2/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Famine Advantage

2/29

[File Name]
3/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

1AC Famine Advantage

Cuba is facing massive famine

Cruz 13Journalist for Babalu, a news source focusing specifically on Cuba(De La Cruz, Alberto. "The Two Islands

of Cuba: Splendor for the Elite, Starvation for Everyone Else | Babal Blog." Babal Blog RSS. N.p., 26 Mar. 2013. Web.
10 July 2013. <http://babalublog.com/2013/03/26/the-two-island-of-cuba-splendor-for-the-elite-starvation-for-everyoneelse/>.)
As photographer Michael Dweck documented in his book Habana Libre, the elite members of Cuba's ruling class
enjoy a life of splendor with bountiful meals, flowing champagne and cocktails, and decadent parties that
can last for days. For the rest of Cuba's people, however, poverty, misery, and starvation is all they
have to look forward to. A new video filmed inside of Cuba by the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU) shows

the long lines which form throughout the island in order to receive food, which many timesas occurs in this video- never appears. As a result of this shortage, various women turn to the camera to
protest. They are voices of hunger, desperation and discontent.

Lifting the embargo solves

Zimmerman, fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress , 2010
(Chelsea, Rethinking the Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time to Mend a Broken Policy, A
Dialogue on Presidential Challenges and Leadership: Papers of the 2009-2010 Center Fellows,
Online: http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf)
Trade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion annually by removing the trade
embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while also helping to alleviate
hunger among Cubans. A policy environment open to international trade and investment is a necessary ingredient to
sustain higher rates of economic growth and to promote political freedom through exposure to new technology, communications,
and democratic ideas (Griswold, 1; Sachs and Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is a

means of lowering domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor, food availability and
domestic production. U.S. companies will introduce new technologies and production
methods, while raising wages and labor standards as a result of trading with Cuba . The
additional creation of wealth will help to advance social, political, and economic conditions
independent of the governing authorities in Cuba . The most economically open countries today are more than
three times as likely to enjoy full

political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed (Griswold, 1).

We have a moral obligation to provide food to all, even if that leads to extinction.
Watson 77, (Richard, Professor of Philosophy at Washington University, World Hunger and Moral
Obligation, p. 118-119)
These arguments are morally spurious. That food sufficient for well-nourished survival is the equal right of every
human individual or nation is a specification of the higher principle that everyone has equal right to the necessities of
life. The moral stress of the principle of equity is primarily on equal sharing, and only secondarily on what is being
shared. The higher moral principle is of human equity per se. Consequently, the moral action is to

distribute all food equally, whatever the consequences.

This is the hard line apparently

drawn by such moralists as Immanuel Kant and Noam Chomskybut then, morality is hard. The conclusion may
be unreasonable (impractical and irrational in conventional terms), but it is obviously moral. Nor should
anyone purport surprise; it has always been understood that the claims of moralityif taken seriously
supersede those of conflicting reason. One may even have to sacrifice ones life or ones nation
to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it. For example, if a prisoner of war undergoing
torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will hurt no one, he remains
silent. Similarly, if one is to be moral, one distributes available food in equal shares (even if
everyone then dies). That an action is necessary to save ones life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or
immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to
save ones life or nation. There is a strict analogy here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being
moral, and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian. The moral world contains pits and lions, but
one looks always to the highest light. The ultimate test always harks to the highest principlerecant or dieand it is

3/29

[File Name]
4/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough . I have put aside many questions of detail

such as the mechanical problems of distributing foodbecause detail does not alter the stark conclusion. If every human life is equal in value, then the
equal distribution of the necessities of life is an extremely high, if not the highest, moral duty. It is at least high enough to override the excuse that by
doing it one would lose ones life. But many people cannot accept the view that one must distribute equally even in f the nation collapses or all people
die. If everyone dies, then there will be no realm of morality. Practically speaking, sheer survival comes first. One can adhere to the principle of equity
only if one exists. So it is rational to suppose that the principle of survival is morally higher than the principle of equity. And though one might not be
able to argue for unequal distribution of food to save a nationfor nations can come and goone might well argue that unequal distribution is necessary
for the survival of the human species. That is, some large groupsay one-third of present world populationshould be at least well-nourished for
human survival. However, from an

individual standpoint, the human specieslike the nationis of no moral

relevance. From a naturalistic standpoint, survival does come first; from a moralistic standpointas
indicated abovesurvival may have to be sacrificed. In the milieu of morality, it is immaterial
whether or not the human species survives as a result of individual behavior.

4/29

[File Name]
5/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

US Influence/Relations Advantage

5/29

[File Name]
6/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

UQ US Losing Influence Now Cuba Key

U.S. losing influence in the western hemisphere disagreements over Cuba kill our
credibility
Parsons 12 (4/25, Renee, Fmr. lobbyist for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C. focusing on nuclear energy issues, Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/us-hegemony-in-latin-amer_b_1445244.html)
While the 'misconduct' of Secret Service agents with prostitutes in Colombia is a significant, if titillating scandal, most media
reports have missed the tectonic political shift that surfaced at the recent Summit of the Americas meeting. The

Summit, an offshoot of the Organization of American States organized in 1948, consists

of 35 western hemisphere nations that meet on a tri-annual basis with the U.S.
historically setting the agenda since the summit's inception in 1994. The president arrived,
smooth and impeccable, with, no doubt, the expectation of encouraging new investment and trade initiatives at the first
business seminar conducted since the Summits began. Attending were over three hundred U.S. business executives with
Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue in attendance to push for a free trade deal with Brazil. Once China

began out-hustling the U.S. for its share of the global pie in Latin America and as the U.S. bogged
down in a decade of war with an enduring economic catastrophe on its hands, Summit
countries took the opportunity to readjust their vision of U ncle Sam's once omnipotent
authority. That readjusted vision has offered a measure of independence from U.S. trade
markets as well as U.S. domination on policy decisions . While not known for its historical memory, the

U.S. does not usually react kindly to previously compliant nations flexing their sovereign muscles, U.S. AID to Latin American
and the Caribbean at $1.3 billion in 2010 will most likely provide the necessary tether for continued cooperation. Out of left
field, the president's usual razzle dazzle charm offensive so successful at his first summit in 2009 ran into a brick wall amid
deep contentious divisions that had been brewing since the previous summit. In what may be karmic payback

for one hundred and fifty years of U.S. policy imposed on Latin America, 32 nations
supported a resolution that Cuba be allowed to attend the 2015 summit with only the U.S.
and the reliable Canadians voting against. Cuba had been expelled from the OAS in 1962
with the beginning of 50 years of economic sanctions and was readmitted in 2009 but not
invited to the summit. In an amiable display of hubris, the president dug in his heels insisting that
Cuba cannot attend since it has "not yet moved to democracy" and is still a "single party state"
meaning no adversarial political parties. As Obama spoke of democracy, the irony of the U.S. undermining
democratically elected Latin American heads of state and now requiring democracy as a
condition for membership must have been subject for some sarcasm among current
summit leaders. A summit rule adopted in 2001 required each participant to respect the rule of law as a 'democratic'
country although Mexico, which had been a regular Summit participant since 1994, achieved real democracy only in 2000.
How well each participant respects the rule of law and encourages robust political partisan debate may rest in the eye of the
beholder. It is curious that American leaders expect its citizens and other nations to not

connect the dots when it comes to its own double standards. It would be educational to know how the
U.S. would justify applying the summit's democracy rule to China, our third largest trading partner, or to Saudi Arabia, our
favorite importer of petroleum, neither known as guiding lights for justice or equality. If the democratic standard

is that a majority vote carries the day and since an overwhelming majority of summit
nations adopted the Cuban resolution, how is democracy served when a minority of two
have the power to challenge that resolution's implementation and how is it that one
nation gets to decide who is invited? Therein lies the problem for U.S. foreign policy
around the world -- that other nations and its people are capable of 'seeing' beyond the
pretense. As a backdrop for atmosphere at the summit, the experience of Bolivia is informative. In 2008, the Bush

Administration suspended 'trade preferences' including duty free status for Bolivia alleging an insufficient effort to stop drug
trafficking. The move came less than a month after Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the U.S. Ambassador of
fomenting violence and upheaval with right wing opposition groups. In expelling the envoy, Morales accused the U.S. of an
attack on a gas pipeline and initiating an assassination conspiracy. With the election of Barack Obama, diplomatic relations
between the two countries were set back when the Bush suspension was made permanent, costing Bolivia 20,000 non-drug
industry related jobs and $278 million in exports. The coca leaf is legal in Bolivia as a tea and for religious and cultural
purposes. If the discussion on Cuba was not a forewarning of a challenge to its authority, the U.S. response to
decriminalizing drugs must have been especially irksome to nation who has lived with years of massive violence and
corruption from the drug cartels. Fareed Zakaria reported Sunday on CNN that Mexico had suffered an unbelievable 50,000
drug related deaths in the last six years. While U.S. strategy at the Summit may be viewed as a metaphor for American
pursuit of obsolete Cold War objectives around the world, the president offered little more than platitudes and some
confusion with his categorical statement that "For the sake of the health and safety of our citizens -- all our citizens -- the

6/29

[File Name]
7/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

United States will not be going in this direction." It remains a puzzle as to why Obama, greeted as a rock star at the 2009
summit, left no room for negotiation on an issue that isolates the U.S. from many of its south-of-the-border allies and causes
great anguish for millions of American families. With over two million incarcerated and another five million on probation, the
U.S. can claim to have the most citizens in jail for drug-related offenses than any other country in the world. Latin American
leaders have raised the issue with the U.S. in the past when the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for
decriminalization of marijuana in 2009. The U.S. drug policy, which has spent $25 billion on ineffectual crop eradication and
border interdiction efforts as it has encouraged a militarization of the failed war on drugs, the president's 'new environment
of cooperation' hit a serious ditch in the road as the U.S. and Canada objected to a consensus document preferring the
'reduce-demand' theory reminiscent of Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign. In what has been deemed a

setback for the U.S., the sixth Summit of the Americas faltered to an unhappy conclusion
for all participants with President Morales and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff
predicting no future summits without Cuba. The president seriously misread the mood in the hemisphere,
especially in an awkward moment when he said "Sometimes I feel as if... we're caught in a time warp, going back to the
1950s, gunboat diplomacy, and Yankees and the Cold War, and so forth, and not addressing the world we live in." That was,
Mr. President, exactly the problem at Cartagena. The Summit wants to move forward into the 21st

Century but it is the United States that clings to the past as it resists the will of the
majority.

7/29

[File Name]
8/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Impact Democracy/Trade
U.S. influence in Latin America key to democratization and trade
Nicholas 11 (Peter, 3/22, LA Times Latin America increasingly important to the U.S., Obama says

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/22/world/la-fg-obama-chile-20110322)
Reporting from Santiago, Chile President Obama said Monday that the United States has sometimes taken Latin America
for granted, but that he sees the region as an increasingly important player on the world stage. Obama, in Chile at the
midpoint of a five-day, three-country Latin American trip, sought to dispel views of the U.S. as an overbearing neighbor
dictating terms to countries in the region. He called Latin America "a region on the move, proud of its

progress, and ready to assume a greater role in world affairs," and he described the U.S.
economy as deeply entwined with that of Latin America. "Latin America is only going to
become more important to the United States, especially to our economy ," the president said
after a meeting and news conference with Chilean President Sebastian Piera. " Trade between the United States
and Latin America has surged. We buy more of your goods and products than any other country, and we invest
more in this region than any other country. In other words, when Latin America is more prosperous, the United States is
more prosperous. "With no other region does the United States have so many connections. And
nowhere do we see that more than in the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans across the United States, who enrich our
society, grow our economy and strengthen our nation every single day," he said. Obama laid out a vision for

the Latin American-U.S. relationship that was rooted in a shared belief in democracy,
stronger cultural ties and expanded trade. Obama's first trip to South America has unfolded in the shadow

of the military conflict in Libya. Still, White House aides said his comments Monday, which included a speech at La Moneda
Palace Cultural Center, a modern art museum near the presidential palace, were important in recasting America's
relationship with its southern neighbors. Fifty years ago John F. Kennedy launched his Alliance for Progress, pumping billions
of dollars into the Latin American economy. Today, struggling with huge deficits at home, an

American president is no longer in a position to lavish aid on the region and so must
rethink the way north and south cooperate in the new era , aides said. But the history between Chile
and the U.S. has had its painful moments. At the news conference, a Chilean reporter asked Obama about "open wounds"
stemming from the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Thousands of people were killed, kidnapped or tortured under
Pinochet's rule, from 1973 to 1990. Referring to allegations that the United States played a role in Pinochet's 1973 coup, the
reporter said that "many of those wounds have to do with the U.S." He asked if Obama would pledge U.S. assistance in
investigating that part of Chile's past. Obama said the U.S. would "like to cooperate" with requests for information about
involvement. "Obviously," Obama said, "the history of relations between the United States and Latin America have at times
been extremely rocky and have at times been difficult. I think it's important, though, for us, even as we understand our
history and gain clarity about our history, that we're not trapped by our history. "And the fact of the matter is, is that over
the last two decades we've seen extraordinary progress here in Chile, and that has not been impeded by the United States
but, in fact, has been fully supported by the United States."

8/29

[File Name]
9/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Impact Stability
Multipolarity results in great power rivalry, world wars prove hegemony more stable
Varisco 13 (Andrea Edoardo, writer for e-International Relations, Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for
Global Peace? http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-which-prospects-for-global-peace/)

History has indeed already shown how multi-polarity is more unstable and war-prone
than bipolarity or unipolarity. The modern history of Europe for example has been characterized by many multipolar moments. At the beginning of the 17th century, the multi-polar European order was swept away by the Thirty Years
War, a conflict that lasted from 1618 to 1648 and was triggered by religious, territorial and dynastic disputes over the
internal politics and balance of power among various Christian groups and principalities. The conflict involved the Holy
Roman Empire of the Hapsburgs, German Protestant princes, the foreign powers of France, Sweden, Denmark, England and
the United Provinces and was ended by the Peace of Westphalia, which introduced the concept of state sovereignty and gave
rise to the modern international system of states. This system of states was challenged by the expansion of the Napoleonic
Empire at the beginning of the 19th century. After the defeat of the Emperor, in 1815 the great powers held the Congress of
Vienna to re-establish the previous state order and formulated the Concert of Europe as a mechanism to enforce their
decisions. The Concert of Europe was composed by the Quadruple Alliance of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Great Britain and
was aimed to achieve a balance of power in Europe, preserving the territorial status quo, protecting legitimate governments
and containing France after decades of war. The Concert of Europe was one of the few historical examples of stable multipolarity: the regular meetings of the great powers assured decades of peace and stability in the continent. The Concert of
Europe suppressed uprisings for constitutional governments in Italy and Spain, secured the independence of Greece and
Belgium but did not prevent the Crimean War in 1853 and a return to great power rivalry. During the 20th century

multi-polar international systems resulted in instability and led to two world wars in less
than 50 years. The balance of power and the system of alliances of the early 20th century was swept away by the
assassination of Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. That event triggered World War I, a global conflict that caused the death
of more than 15 million people in less than five years. After few decades, the multi-polar world emerged by World

was not able to tame the

totalitarian aspirations of Hitler. The German invasion of Poland in 1939 triggered World War II, the deadliest
War I with a new system of alliances and the multilateral body of the League of Nations

conflict of the history which resulted in millions of deaths and in the holocaust. Since the end of the World War II the world
has never been multi-polar again, nevertheless these historical accounts seem to indicate how multi-polarity often

created an unstable and unpredictable world, characterized by shifting alliances and by

the aspiration of the rising powers to change the balance of power and create a new
order. These historical features of multi-polarity will likely distinguish also the future
multi-polar world, in spite of its strong economic interconnection and
institutionalization. History indeed has also shown how the effects on stability of a global
economy and of multilateral institutions have been sometimes overestimated. The multipolar world at the beginning of the 20th century was highly economically interconnected
and characterized by a large cross-border flows of goods, capital and people , at the point that
the ratio of trade to output indicates that Britain and France are only slightly more open to trade today than they were in
1913, while Japan is less open now than then (The Economist, 99; Van den Bossche, 4). Nevertheless, this high
interconnection was swept away by World War I. Furthermore, the presence of the League of Nations did not prevent World
War II; likewise, the multilateral organization of the UN has not always been effective in promoting peace and security, and
membership in the European Union did not prevent European countries from having different positions and antithetic
behaviors in the wake of US war in Iraq in 2003. A shifting from a well defined hierarchy of power to a

great power rivalry will therefore result in a less stable world order.

9/29

[File Name]
10/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: Soft Power Fails

Latin America multipolarity can be successful
NACLA No Date (North American Congress on Latin America, Introduction: The Multipolar Moment?

https://nacla.org/article/introduction-multipolar-moment)
Picture it: two flags, one Chinese, the other Cuban, flying on an oil rig just a few dozen miles off the U.S. coast. The January
2005 deal between Chinese state company Sinopec and its Cuban counterpart to explore for oil in the Gulf of Mexico is but
one of many examples of new a multipolar trend in the hemisphere, indeed in the world. Although Cuba, because

of the embargo, has pursued international partnerships for more than a decade, more
nations in the hemisphere are following the same strategy. In an effort to cast off
dependence on the United States, contain its power, and pursue economic development
outside the Washington Consensus, they are joining with partners elsewhere in the
Global South. No less than Charles Krauthammerauthor of the influential 1990 article The
Unipolar Moment, in which the neoconservative columnist hailed the post-Soviet era as one in which the United
States alone would reign supremehas declared unipolarity finished. With this announcement, Krauthammer
did not have Latin American oil contracts in mind, but rather the anti-hegemonic alliance in the Middle East being
constructed by an Iran supposedly fixated on acquiring nuclear weapons. Whatever these claims, the definition of
international polarity at work here rests on the balance of military mighton hard power. As the essays in this Report
bear out, Latin Americas approach to building a new multipolar world order is decidedly

in

the soft power arena, even in its most militant version Venezuelan president Hugo Chvezs oil

diplomacy. Venezuelas strategy centers on diversifying its oil partners among Southern state companies, which are
generally happy to transfer their technology, unlike their private-sector counterparts. The strategy also concentrates on
building international solidarity through cooperation agreements with partners in various regions. In its symbols and
rhetoric, chavista internationalism recalls the Third World project analyzed herein by Vijay Prashad. Despite differences
between Latin Americas history of colonialism and imperialism and those of Africa and Asia, the region played a critical role
in supporting decolonization, from the signing of the UN Charter to the Non-Aligned Movement, and including the remarkable
history of Cuban internationalism. The far less provocative diplomacy of Brazil, compared to Venezuelas, follows less in the
spirit of Bandung and more in that of 1970s South-South cooperation efforts. Building coalitions in institutions like the World
Trade Organization (WTO), Brazil seeks to constrain the North through international commitments to unify opposition to the
Washington Consensus among undeveloped countries. To this end, Brazil spearheaded an alliance with India and South Africa
to form the IBSA Dialogue Forum. This trilateral core, together with China, then served as a coalition magnet within the
WTO, contributing to, among other things, the successful coordination of positions on agricultural subsidies at the 2003 WTO
ministerial. But they remain rule conditioners, not makers. Brazils assertive foreign policy in some ways parallels Chinas.
Its massive domestic market and booming output notwithstanding, China has in recent years postured itself as a fellow
developing country, deepening and intensifying links with Latin America. Trade with China has grown at least fivefold since
2000, and although the bulk of it seems to reproduce classic North-South asymmetrieswith Latin America exporting raw
materials receiving finished goods in returnmany governments believe China offers both an attractive alternative to the
Washington Consensus and an intriguing development model. Successfully building effective coalitions

and mutually beneficial trade, linking with extrahemispheric partners and presenting a
coordinated position in global forumsthese policy options were largely unavailable to
Latin America even just recently. Although these developments certainly do not signify the end of U.S.
dominance, their momentum has been established. According to Aijaz Ahmad in this issues Anniversary Interview,
Krauthammers unipolar moment was, for the left, the beginning of a phase of experimentation with various forms of
struggle, combining some older forms with newer ones. These innovations, he says, might eventually

show us the way to historically unprecedented forms that are appropriate for revolutions
of the 21st century.

10/29

[File Name]
11/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Prolif Updates A2 Prolif Good

11/29

[File Name]
12/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: Prolif Good Solves War/Deterrence

Cold war deterrence no longer appliesProliferation will cause nuclear war
Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, 2009
(Henry, Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd, Policy Review, June & July, Online:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)
At a minimum,

such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed during the
Cold War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or another of the two superpowers strong alliance

systems the U.S.-led free world and the Russian-Chinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small,
nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and system, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now have one superpower, the United
States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone, associated with a relatively weak
alliance system ( nato) that includes two European nuclear powers (France and the uk). nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear
targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia (Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence
of an increasing number of nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with independent
nuclear powers by making them strategic partners (e.g., India and Russia), nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), non-nato allies
(e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g.,
Iran or North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this world, every nuclear power
center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security
relations or ties with one another but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being as
important as the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear-armed entities (see Figure 3). There are limits, however,

a weak alliance system, with its expanding set of loose affiliations,

risks becoming analogous to the international system that failed to contain offensive actions prior to World
War I. Unlike 1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces anywhere on the globe. But in
a world with an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready states, this may not
matter as much as we think. In such a world, the actions of just one or two states or groups that
might threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state could check U.S. influence or
ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing . No amount of military science or
tactics could assure that the U.S. could disarm or neutralize such threatening or unstable
nuclear states.22 Nor could diplomats or our intelligence services be relied upon to keep up to date on what each of these
to what this approach can accomplish. Such

governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted
above and one could easily create the perfect nuclear storm: Small differences between nuclear

competitors that would put all actors on edge; an overhang of nuclear materials that could be
called upon to break out or significantly ramp up existing nuclear deployments; and a variety of potential new
nuclear actors developing weapons options in the wings. In such a setting, the military and nuclear
rivalries between states could easily be much more intense than before . Certainly each nuclear
states military would place an even higher premium than before on being able to weaponize its
military and civilian surpluses quickly, to deploy forces that are survivable, and to have forces that can get to their
targets and destroy them with high levels of probability. The advanced military states will also be even more inclined to develop and
deploy enhanced air and missile defenses and long-range, precision guidance munitions , and to develop a variety of

preventative and preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a world, relations between states
could become far less stable. Relatively small developments e.g., Russian support for sympathetic nearabroad provinces; Pakistani-inspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently in Mumbai; new Indian flanking
activities in Iran near Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts
of key figures in the Middle East or South West Asia, etc. could easily prompt nuclear weapons deployments

with strategic consequences (arms races, strategic miscues, and even nuclear war). As
Herman Kahn once noted, in such a world every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence
of a kind quite different from what is possible today .23 In short, we may soon see a future that neither the
proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their critics, would ever want.

12/29

[File Name]
13/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: Prolif Good Bioweapons

Bioweapons are a jokeEmpirics prove no impact
Easterbrook, Senior Fellow @ the New Republic, 2003
(Gregg, Were All Gonna Die!, Wired, July, Online:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=2&topic=&topic_set=)
Like chemical agents, biological weapons have never lived up to their billing in pop ular culture. Consider
the 1995 medical thriller Outbreak, in which a highly contagious virus takes out entire towns. The reality is quite different.

Weaponized smallpox escaped from a Soviet laboratory in Aralsk, Kazakhstan, in 1971; three
people died, no epidemic followed. In 1979, weapons-grade anthrax got out of a Soviet facility in
Sverdlovsk (now called Ekaterinburg); 68 died, no epidemic. The loss of life was tragic, but no greater than
could have been caused by a single conventional bomb. In 1989, workers at a US government facility near
Washington were accidentally exposed to Ebola virus. They walked around the community and
hung out with family and friends for several days before the mistake was discovered. No one
died. The fact is, evolution has spent millions of years conditioning mammals to resist germs .
Consider the Black Plague. It was the worst known pathogen in history, loose in a Middle Ages society of
poor public health, awful sanitation, and no antibiotics. Yet it didnt kill off humanity. Most people who were
caught in the epidemic survived. Any superbug introduced into todays Western world would
encounter top-notch public health, excellent sanitation, and an array of medicines specifically
engineered to kill bioagents. Perhaps one day some aspiring Dr. Evil will invent a bug that bypasses the immune system.
Because it is possible some novel superdisease could be invented, or that existing pathogens like smallpox could be genetically
altered to make them more virulent (two-thirds of those who contract natural smallpox survive), biological agents are a legitimate
concern. They may turn increasingly troublesome as time passes and knowledge of biotechnology becomes harder to control,
allowing individuals or small groups to cook up nasty germs as readily as they can buy guns today. But no superplague has

ever come close to wiping out humanity before, and it seems unlikely to happen in the future .
Nuclear war causes extinctionClimate disruptions, famine, and radiation

Starr 08

(Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, USASGR Newsletter. High-alert
nuclear weapons:the forgotten danger. August 2008. http://www.sgr.org.uk/newsletters/NL36_lead.pdf
Ironically, the US and Russia--No First Use pledge for their nuclear weapons)
The consequences of a war involving high-alert nuclear weapons General knowledge of nuclear weapon effects is
also sadly lacking. Most people have no idea that the detonation of a single average strategic nuclear weapon will
ignite a gigantic firestorm over a total area of 105 to 170 square kilometres.34Even fewer people are aware of the
predicted environmental and ecological consequences of nuclear conflict. As discussed in the previous SGR
Newsletter,35 recent research using NASA climate models forecasts that even a regional nuclear war,

using 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons, would result in catastrophic disruptions of the
global climate.36 Burning cities would produce about five million of tons of smoke that would rise above cloud
level to form a global stratospheric smoke layer. This would block sunlight, leading to rapid drops in global
surface temperature and significant reductions in global precipitation. Furthermore, research published
in April 2008 indicated that smoke from this regional conflict would also destroy 25-40% of the protective ozone
layer over the populated mid-latitudes, and 50-70% of the ozone over the more northerly latitudes.37 Such
reductions would enormously increase the amount of ultraviolet light reaching the surface and have serious
consequences for humans and many other forms of life. The levels of ozone destruction predicted by this new study
had previously only been expected to happen after a full-scale nuclear war.38 Unfortunately, no new studies have
been carried out using a modern climate model that could estimate the amount of ozone that would be destroyed by
a major nuclear conflict, but it seems reasonable to expect that it could be significantly larger. In 2007, US scientists
predicted that a nuclear war fought with about one-third of the global nuclear arsenal 39 would
cause 50 million tons of smoke to reach the stratosphere about ten times that of a regional war. The

resulting nuclear darkness would cause average global surface temperatures to become as
cold as those experienced 18,000 years ago during the coldest period of the last ice age40 see
Figure 1. The US and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals on high alert contain a total explosive power of
nearly 1,200 MT, with the total explosive power of the operational, deployed nuclear arsenals of both countries
being nearly 2,700 MT (see Table 3). Based on the new climate studies , a nuclear war between these two

13/29

[File Name]
14/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

nations, which began with the detonation of their high-alert, launch-ready nuclear arsenals, and
went on to include about another 20% of their deployed nuclear arsenals, would at minimum result in
the extreme level of climate change shown in Figure 1. Computer models predict that 40% of the smoke
would still remain in the stratosphere 10 years after the nuclear war, causing a long-term nuclear darkness. The
subsequent cooling of the Earths surface would weaken the global hydrological cycle and lead to significant
decreases in average global precipitation.42Growing seasons would be drastically shortened throughout
the world, particularly in the large agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Under such circumstances, most
people on Earth would starve.43 In addition to the catastrophic effects on the climate and ozone layer, a
nuclear war would release enormous amounts of radioactive fallout, pyrotoxins and toxic industrial
chemicals into the environment. Taken together, these would be a clear threat to the continued
survival of humans and other complex forms of life. The scientists who carried out the research on the
climatic consequences of nuclear war state that a nuclear first-strike would be suicidal, and have called for a new
global nuclear environmental treaty.

14/29

[File Name]
15/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Democracy Add-on

15/29

[File Name]
16/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Cuban Democracy Good

Cuban Democracy spreads through Latin America democratic domino affect
Peter T. Leeson George Mason University graduate student and Andrea M. Dean No date West Virginia University
graduate student The Democratic Domino Theory: An Empirical Investigation
http://peterleeson.homestead.com/Democratic_Domino_Theory.pdf

Although the particular political-economic features of concern vary across renditions of the
domino theory, the basic logic underlying domino-style reasoning is the same in each case. In
this model, changes in one countrys political institutions spread to neighboring countries,
affecting these countries political institutions similarly, which spreads to their neighbors, and
so on. According to the democratic domino theory, for instance, increases in one nations
democracy lead to increases in its neighbors democracy, leading to increases in their
neighbors democracy, and so on. The result is greater democracy in the region and world.
On the other hand, decreases in democracy in one country may also infect
neighboring nations, reducing their democracy, which spreads to their neighbors,
deteriorating global democracy.
Empirically Democracy solves war in Latin America and abroad
Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in
International Security March 1998 "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy"
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_dem
ocracy.html
First, there are reasons to doubt the strength of the relationship between democratization and
war. Other quantitative studies challenge the statistical significance of Mansfield and Snyder''s
results, suggest that there is an even stronger connection between movements toward
autocracy and the onset of war, find that it is actually unstable transitions and reversals of
democratization that increase the probability of war, and argue that democratization
diminishes the likelihood of militarized international disputes.115 In particular, autocracies
are likely to exploit nationalism and manipulate public opinion to launch diversionary wars-the
same causal mechanisms that Mansfield and Snyder claim are at work in democratizing states.
Mansfield and Snyder themselves point out that "reversals of democratization are nearly as risky
as democratization itself," thereby bolstering the case for assisting the consolidation of new
democracies.116 In addition, very few of the most recent additions to the ranks of democracies
have engaged in wars. In Central and Eastern Europe, for example, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have avoided major
internal and external conflicts. Of these countries, only Slovenia was involved in brief series of
military skirmishes with Serbia.117 Russia has been involved in a number of small wars on or
near its borders, but so far it has undergone a dramatic transition toward democracy without
becoming very warlike.118 There is little evidence of international war in Latin America, which
also has witnessed a large-scale transition to democracy in recent years. Countries such as
Mongolia and South Africa appear to have made the transition to democracy without going to
war. The new democracies plagued by the most violence, including some former Soviet republics
and the republics of the former Yugoslavia, are those that are the least democratic and may not
qualify as democracies at all.

16/29

[File Name]
17/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: Obesity Turn

17/29

[File Name]
18/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

2AC A2 Lifting Embargo = Obesity

Being underweight kills more people their evidence doesnt account for the positive
effects of being overweight

Flegal et al, 2005

Katherine M. Flegal, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD; David F. Williamson, PhD; Mitchell H. Gail, MD,
PhD
Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293:1861-1867. Excess Deaths Associated
With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity

excess deaths greater than zero for the

underweight category, less than zero for the overweight category, and increasing at higher BMI levels.
Estimates based on relative risks from each of the 3 surveys showed a similar pattern, with

Although the prevalence of BMI 35 or greater is low (Table 3), that category accounted for the largest absolute number of estimated excess deaths in
2000, regardless of which survey served as the source of relative risks. The estimates of excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI 30) were calculated
from the distribution of BMI and other covariates in NHANES 1999-2002; however, these estimates vary according to the source of the relative risk
estimates. Excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI 30) were calculated as 298 808 according to the NHANES I relative risks, 26 917 according to
the NHANES II relative risks, or 43 650 according to the NHANES III relative risks. In all 3 cases, however, the majority of deaths
associated with obesity were associated with BMI 35 and above: 186 498, 21 777, or 57 515 deaths, respectively.
(NHANES III relative risks produced a negative estimate for BMI 30 to <35.) For overweight (BMI 25 to <30), the data consistently
suggested no excess deaths overall: 14 354, 171 945, or 99 979 excess deaths according to the relative risks from each of the 3
surveys. For underweight (BMI <18.5), the relative risks from all surveys suggested a slight increase in risk. The estimated excess deaths associated with
underweight were 41 930, 19 618, or 38 456. Using relative risks from the combined survey data, we estimated that 111 909 excess deaths in 2000 (95%
CI, 53 754 to 170 064) were associated with obesity (BMI 30) (Figure 2). Of the excess deaths associated with obesity, the majority (82 066 deaths; 95%
CI, 44 843 to 119 289) occurred in individuals with BMI 35 or greater. Overweight was associated with a slight reduction in
mortality (86 094 deaths; 95% CI, 161 223 to 10 966) relative to the normal weight category. Thus, for overweight and obesity
combined (BMI 25), our estimate was 25 814 excess deaths (95% CI, 86 284 to 137 913) in 2000, arrived at by adding the
estimate for obesity to the estimate for overweight. Underweight was associated with 33 746 excess deaths (95% CI, 15 72651 766).

Countermeasures check - the entire population will never be overweight fashion

industry, social norms, desire to be attractive, etc, prove that lots of people will stay
fit. Increased public attention will lead to anti-obesity campaigns proven by status
quo. Solved Smoking, will solve obesity

LALASZ 2008

(Robert, senior editor at Population Reference Bureau, Will Rising Childhood Obesity Decrease U.S. Life Expectancy?
www.prb.org/Articles/2005/WillRisingChildhoodObesityDecreaseUSLifeExpectancy.aspx?p=1)

Olshansky, Preston, and other demographers interviews for this article do agree on one thing: Obesity
is a serious and growing public-health issue that calls for a renewed public campaign. But Preston is
optimistic that behavioral changes can counter America's increasing waistlines .
"I think smoking as an addictive habit was probably harder to break than eating 30 or 100 calories a
day too many," says Preston. "The fact that we did break the back of the smoking addictionand there
was a huge campaign to do soindicates that if we undertook a similar campaign, it might be
similarly successful."
Olshansky says he's already undertaken such a campaignin his own home. "One thing my
generation learned is to clean our plates, to override our body's internal mechanism that we're full,"
he says. "I'm acutely aware of that and am teaching myself and my children to stop eating when
they're full, and it's been remarkable. I've lost 20 to 25 pounds in the last year."
18/29

[File Name]
19/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Turn: Obesity is a sign of good health in the Caribbean

Sharma 2012 (Dr. Arya M. Sharma, MD/PhD, FRCPC is Professor of Medicine & Chair in Obesity
Research and Management at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/post-author/arya-m-sharma ) <^.^>
On the first day of the 1st Caribbean Obesity Forum, I presented various talks on obesity its
economic implications, its assessment and the need for firmly anchoring obesity treatment in
primary care. Interestingly, several family doctors in the audience raised the interesting issue that
here on Barbados (as probably on other islands) many patients are actually quite happy with their
weights. One family physician noted in his presentation the case of an overweight woman, who
presented in his practice with diabetes. A few weeks after starting her on metformin, she came
back considerably distressed about the fact, that she had now lost a few kilos. He noted that despite
explaining out that her diabetes was now under control and her blood pressure had improved,

she remained unconvinced about the benefits of being on this treatment. To her, losing weight
equated directly with being unhealthy and less sexy to her husband. This topic came up several
times during the day, where the issue of how to address obesity related health problems in a culture,
where excess weight is considered both physically attractive and a sign of good health never
mind that the Caribbean (as pointed out by other speakers) now has some of the highest diabetes
rates in world I have heard Jamaica referred to as the world capital of foot amputations. The notion
of obesity as a sign of good health of course is not that surprising especially in countries
where malnutrition, infectious diseases, gut parasites, and other wasting conditions, are
endemic. Being skinny is a sure sign of sickness and weight loss is most alarming. One discussant

reminded me of the African practice of fattening rooms, where brides-to-be would be sequestered and
overfed in order to be their best weight on their wedding day the exact opposite of Western
societies, where brides wanting to lose weight provide healthy profits for the weight-loss industry.
Obviously, in such a setting, the very idea that excess weight may adversely affect pregnancy
outcomes, is clearly a hard sell as noted by the colleague speaking on the issue of epigenetic
programming in utero.in the discussions, I did point out that while we certainly did not have an issue
with women not wanting to lose weight (in fact our challenge is perhaps the opposite convincing
many women that the few extra pounds they would so desperately like to shave off their butts and
thighs may actually protect them from diabetes and other health problems), we do have a problem
with men trivialising or denying the problem. These learnings are nevertheless important to me,
especially when practicing in a country like Canada, where we see patients with a wide range of ethnic
and cultural backgrounds.As clinicians, let us be aware that when some of our patients appear
unconcerned about their weight-realated health problems, they may not simply be unmotivated to
consider obesity treatments they (and their family and friends) may actively oppose and resist them.

19/29

[File Name]
20/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Off-Case Updates

20/29

[File Name]
21/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: CP

21/29

[File Name]
22/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: Maintain Restrictions CP Lifting Whole Embargo Key

Lifting the whole embargo is key to cultural exchanges and diplomatic tiesspurs
change

Huddleston, 08

(Vicki Huddleston, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Africa at the Department of Defense. She was
a visiting fellow at Brookings and co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition from 2007 to 2009;
Cuba Embargo's Usefulness Has Run Its Course; http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/03/10-cuba-huddleston; March
10th, 2008) JM

Fidel Castro and the Cuba

Revolution have survived and to some degree thrived, despite all our efforts to the contrary. If we had
No matter how much we may wish it to be otherwise, there is no denying the fact that

any doubt, it should have been removed when Fidel handed over power to his hand-picked loyal successor -- his brother Ral.

Ironically, Fidel has done that which we least expected -- turn over power to a successor while
he is still alive. But by doing so, he has ensured a peaceful transfer of power and his continuing
influence within the regime's hierarchy. His legacy is secure -- and he is still around to watch over it. Ral's job at 76
is to prepare for a transition to one of the loyal elite, such as Vice President Carlos Lage, Foreign Minister Felipe Roque, National
Assembly President Ricardo Alarcn or even a lesser known such as the glamorous former head of the Cuban Interests Section in
Washington D.C., Fernando Ramrez Estenoz. If all goes well, Ral will establish his legitimacy by carrying

out modest reforms that put more food on the table, provide better housing and allow a bit
more personal freedom. Having waited so long for improved living conditions, Ral may not
have to do very much to boost his dour image and popularity. But if the revolution at any time appears to be
in jeopardy, the older, harder, fighting men -- including First Vice President Jos Ramn Machado Ventura, Gen. Julio Casas Regueiro,
who replaced Ral as minister of defense, and Minister of Interior Abelardo Colom Ibarra -- will bring the full force of the institutions
they command to ensure their own survival and that of the Cuban state.

There can no longer be any doubt that

our isolation of Cuba did not and cannot bring about the end of the revolution . What will
the revolution will evolve as it loses
its founding fathers and becomes increasingly less isolated from its neighbors though the
Internet, television, travelers and the flow of information . But how fast and how far the revolution evolves
depends upon U.S. policy. If we remove the barriers to communication, we will speed the forces of
change. Just as was the case in Eastern Europe as a result of the Helsinki agreements, the Cuban people will be
empowered by human contact, the free flow of information, and the support and
encouragement of Americans and Cuban Americans from Florida to California . If U.S. policy
can deal with Cuba -- not as a domestic political issue -- but as one sovereign state to another,
then we will resume official diplomatic relations with the exchange of ambassadors and begin -once again -- to talk about matters that affect the well being and security of both our countries,
namely migration, anti-narcotics, health and the environment. Starting a dialogue will allow us to press
Cuba's leaders to respect the principles that we and the region hold dear: human rights, rule of law and freedom. Removing the
barriers to communications and to normal diplomatic relations are not concessions as some
would claim. Rather, they are practical initiatives that will reduce the dependence of the Cuban
people on the Cuban state by providing them with alternative sources of information and
resources to improve their daily lives. More critically, a policy based on helping the Cuban people
succeed would enable them to build civil society and begin a process of growing democracy
from the bottom up. But the Bush administration is standing by its policy that Cuba must change first, tying any
bring about the revolution's demise are old age, illness and death. More important,

modification in our unilateral embargo to the end of the Castro regime. This does us
and the Cuban people a disservice because it ties our policy to that of Ral Castro's. By waiting for
the Cuban regime to act, we make policy initiatives that would bring about change, dependent
on the actions of the Cuban government. The longer we wait the more likely that Cuba's new
leaders will manage without us. In three to five years, Cuba, with help from foreign investors,
will have exploited deep-sea oil and its sugar cane ethanol, adding billions to its
annual revenues and making the island a net exporter of energy.

22/29

[File Name]
23/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Lifting the whole embargo uniquely keykey to US influence

Pascual and Huddleston, 09

(Foreign Policy, Brookings InstitutionCarlos Pascual, director Foreign Policy at

Brookings Institution; and Vicki Huddleston, co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition; Cuba: A
New Policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement; page 9:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf , April 2009) JM

Cuba policy should be a pressing issue for the Obama administration because it offers a
unique opportunity for the president to transform our relations with the hemisphere . Even a
slight shift away from hostility to engagement will permit the United States to work more
closely with the region to effectively advance a common agenda toward Cuba . By announcing a policy
of critical and constructive engagement at the April Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the president can
prove that he has been listening to the region . He can underline this commitment by
removing all restrictions

on travel and remittances

on Cuban Americans,

and engaging in

dialogue with the regime, as promised during his campaign . By reciprocally improving
our diplomatic relations with Cuba, we will enhance our understanding of the island, its
people, and its leaders. However, while these measures will promote understanding, improve
the lives of people on the island, and build support for a new relationship between our
countries, they are insufficient to ensure the changes needed to result in normal diplomatic
relations over time. if the president is to advance U.S. interests and principles, he will need a new policy and a longterm
strategic vision for U.S. relations with Cuba. if he is prepared to discard the failed policy of regime
change and adopt one of critical and constructive engagement, he and his
administration

will lay the foundations for a new approach toward Cuba and the

latin America . like his predecessors, president Obama has the authority to substantially modify embargo regulations in
order to advance a policy of engagement that would

broaden and deepen contacts with the Cuban

people and their government.

He has the popular supportdomestic and internationalto engage Cuba, and, by so doing,
to staunch our diminishing influence on the island and recapture the high road in our
relations with the hemisphere . Although it will take Cuban cooperation to achieve a real
improvement in relations, we should avoid the mistake of predicating our initiatives on the
actions of the Cuban government. The United States must evaluate and act in its own interests. We must not
tie our every action to those of the Cuban government, because doing so would allow Cuban
officials to set U.S. policy, preventing the United States from serving its own interests.
The Castro Regime is only prosperingcontinuing a hardline approach only worsens
the situation

Pascual and Huddleston, 07

(Foreign Policy, Brookings InstitutionCarlos Pascual, director Foreign Policy at

Brookings Institution; and Vicki Huddleston, co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition; Play a Part
in Cuba's Future; http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2007/04/20latinamerica-pascual; April 20th, 2007
) JM

With the campaign for president well under way, Republican candidatesand the Democrats will
not be far behindare already adopting the anti-Castro rhetoric and stiff support for the embargo
that has helped elect U.S. presidents, members of Congress and Florida's governors. The Bush
administrationby dictating policy and giving little in returnhas so far stuck to our hundredyear-old vice of treating Cuba as if it were a wayward 51st state. Neither side of this equation
dictating or giving littlehas produced positive results for U.S. foreign policy; it has merely
transformed Cuba policy into a domestic political issue. Whether it's Fidel or Ral Castroor
some combination of the two time is running out on U.S. policy on Cuba . During the next
five years, there will be an ongoing political transition in Cuba. Fidel may return to power, only
to be followed once again by Ral if Fidel's health again deteriorates. And, Ral at 75, is unlikely
to rule long. As the inherently unstable situation continues, the United States can sit on the side

23/29

[File Name]
24/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

lines, allowing the Revolution to regenerate and renew itself, or we can encourage reform by
reducing Cuba's isolation. Oil reserves If we continue to stubbornly insist that Cuba must first
magically transform itself into a functioning democracy before we talk, we will be out of luck.
The appeal of our aid, trade and investment will slip away. We will become irrelevant
because Cuban, Venezuelan and other foreign companies are now developing huge offshore oil
reserves. When the oil begins to flow, the income it generates will reinforce the ruling elite by
creating jobs for Cuba's restless youth and by improving lives. Cubans will no longer need the
investment and jobs that Americansespecially Cuban Americanscould provide. Perhaps it is
time for American oil companies to lead the way in opening up Cuba? After all, the expropriation
of these companies led President Eisenhower to impose the first comprehensive sanctions. It will
take courage and vision to change course, but the alternative is that neither the United States
nor Cuban Americans will play a part in Cuba's future. In Poland, Hungry, Czechoslovakia and
the Soviet Union before the fall of the Iron Curtain, our contacts spread the idea that there was
an alternative way of life and helped reinforce internal discontent with communism's failure. The
following actions, although modest, would allow the administration to seize the initiative after
a half-century siesta: Modify our isolationist policiesallow family and people-to-people
visitsas their out-reach will reduce social tensions, allowing for some reforms during the
ongoing and uncertain transitional years. Renew bilateral cooperation on anti-narcotics,
crime, migration and preservation of the environment. These objectives are as much in our
interest as they are in Cuba's. Offer incentives for internal reform, such as permitting direct
telecommunications links and the sale of communications equipment. Encourage the
Organization of American States to begin a dialogue with the Cuban government about the
political and economic reforms that Cuba must undertake to again become an active member.
When Ronald Reagan challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to ''tear down that wall,'' he did so from a
position of moral superiority. He believed that the values of democracy and a market economy
would prevail over authoritarianism and communism when people had a chance to be
exposed to bot h. If, as a nation, we still believe in these core values, the implication should
be clearwe should seek contact with the Cuban people to empower them to take charge of
their future. The price of partisan politics will be to persist in a failed policy that will continue to
give life to Castro's legacy, thereby preventing the contacts that would empower the Cuban
people to take charge of their future.

24/29

[File Name]
25/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

A2: Development/Neolib K

25/29

[File Name]
26/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Perm Solvency
The Embargo IS the neo-liberalist structure that should be the focus of the linkonly
through removing the embargo, can the US be a messenger of liberty for the Cuban
people; NOT an oppressor

Piccone, 11

(Ted Piccone, senior fellow and deputy director for Foreign Policy at Brookings. Piccone specializes
in U.S.-Latin American relations; global democracy and human rights; and multilateral affairs; To Effect Change in
Havana, Support the Cuban People; http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/01/31-cuba-piccone; January
31st, 2011) JM

For 50 years now, the United States has seen Cuba as the enemy, with a long list of laws and
regulations codifying an embargo to show for it . Over the last two decades, however, as Cuba has
sunk lower and lower on the list of countries of concern to our security , it has become harder to justify our
outdated, Cold War notions of enemy and friend. By any conventional measure, Cuba poses little to no security
threat to the United States. Its active military has shrunk from an estimated 235,000 in 1999 to 50,000 10 years later.
According to the State Department, the regime no longer has the resources to project power abroad. Its

place on the official U.S. list of country sponsors of terrorism continues despite the U.S. government's own conclusion that it provides
no direct financial assistance to terrorist groups or armed struggle in the region or beyond. Moreover, Cuba's economy is in

woeful condition. Its sugar industry has collapsed due to lower prices, the end of Soviet subsidies, mismanagement and lack of
investment, sapping the potential it offers in the era of ethanol . Economic activity has suffered further from
multiple devastating hurricanes and droughts. As a result, hundreds of thousands of public
employees are being forced off the government payroll with little hope of productive
employment in the near future. As Cuba continues its inexorable decline, the United States has
remained on the sidelines while others have stepped in to throw Cuba a lifeline . Hugo Chavez's
Venezuela has led the way mainly through subsidized oil imports in exchange for Cuban medical services. China and Russia have also
increased their trade, investments and direct aid, including a $6 billion investment from China's state oil company to expand Cuba's
main refinery. Spain and Canada remain robust partners, particularly in tourism. And although remittances from

Cuban exiles play an important part both in improving the lives of the Cuban people and
generating revenue for the state, most reports indicate life has gotten noticeably worse for most
Cubans over the last decade . If anything, the United States' main concern now should
be the potential of a failed state just 90 miles from its borders . Given the austerity measures
recently adopted by President Raul Castro, we should not be surprised to see an influx of Cuban economic
migrants to our shores, reviving fears of the chaos and turmoil generated during the rafters
crisis of the early 1990s. In addition to preventing a sudden and potentially violent collapse, the United States has
a fundamental interest in fostering a stable, prosperous and democratic Cuba, one that reflects
the aspirations of the Cuban people to determine their own destiny, freely chosen through a
fair, open and competitive democratic process. On this point, there is general bipartisan consensus in this country.
The problem is there is little agreement on how best to support those aspirations with a small but vocal minority
of legislators, particularly from Florida and New Jersey, demanding a continuation of the failed embargo
policies of the past in the hopes the regime will collapse any day now . It is hard to understand
how a unilateral policy of isolation and punishment advances the cause of democracy and
human rights in Cuba. Even in the bad days of the Cold War, the United States championed support to rights advocates
behind the Iron Curtain while simultaneously conducting direct diplomacy with states in the Soviet sphere. When history
eventually turns in Cuba, as it will, should we be on the side of the Cuban people who are
fighting for a better future? Or will we be remembered for acts of aggression, denial and
obstruction? President Obama has stepped gingerly into this dilemma, despite initial promises of "a new day" in U.S.-Cuban
relations. His April 2009 decision to expand travel and remittances for Cuban-Americans, restart
migration talks and loosen telecommunications regulations was the bare minimum down
payment on this vision of change. But shortly thereafter, Washington fell back into a tit-for-tat mode, allowing Havana to
dictate the terms of normalization. Even when positive steps were taken by the Castro regime the release of more than 50 political
prisoners since July 2010, and major economic reforms that should reduce the dependence of the Cuban people on the state the

26/29

[File Name]
27/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

White House moved the goalposts, demanding more fundamental change as well as the release of a U.S. government paid contractor
arrested for providing technical support to the small Jewish community on the island. Now, with ascendant Republican voices in the
new Congress, including control of key committees in the House by pro-embargo legislators from Florida, any hope for legislative
action needed to lift other restrictions like tourist travel is dashed. This despite polls that show a large majority of Americans, as well
as a significant majority of Cuban-Americans (67 percent), favor ending restrictions on all Americans to travel to our neighbor's
shores. It was wise, therefore, for President Obama to exercise his executive authority and

announce on January 15 that he will permit expanded exchanges between U.S. and Cuban
academic, cultural and religious organizations. The rules also allow financial transfers of up to
$2,000 a year from any American to any Cuban not in the senior ranks of the Cuban
Communist Party and more charter flights . These measures will open the door for
direct people-to-people engagement, allowing Americans to serve as our own
messengers for the kind of democratic and economic changes Cubans so desperately
need.

Not surprisingly, they were welcomed by a range of key actors, from the Ladies in White fighting for release of their loved

ones jailed as political prisoners and other leading human rights dissidents on the island, to academic, business, human rights and
religious groups in the United States. The hardliners were aghast, though what punishment they will seek to extract from the Obama
administration remains to be seen. At the end of the day, the future of Cuba rests in the hands of the

Cuban people. Like oppressed peoples everywhere, they deserve the full support of the
American people as expressed through acts of solidarity, dialogue, trust and direct assistance.
That can happen only if both governments get out of the way and allow normal
human discourse to flow between two peoples too long separated by history and
mistrust.

27/29

[File Name]
28/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

Growth Good
Economic Growth is key to stop global warming - innovation
Switkowski 10 - Former research physicist, is the chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation and a former chief executive of the Australian telecommunications
company Telstra, Ziggy, Innovation has climate change in hand, Cosmos, 2-3,
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/3283/innovation-will-produce-solutions-climatechange-problem?page=0%2C0
The combination of slowing population growth, closing the lifestyle gap with the West and the
arrival of new clean energy systems supplying more efficient products and processes could
stabilise greenhouse effects by century end. Along the way, adapting to climate changes is a matter
of resources and resolve - barriers can be built to withstand sea-level rises, emergency services
can be improved, property and personnel can be better protected, and so on. But the legacy of
generations of excessive emissions remains: our climate and environment will be highly stressed and may yet be locked into a
runaway warming trajectory. A key headline claim is that the 200-year industrial era has brought the planet to within 100 years of
irreversible climate catastrophe and that the responsibility lies with today's generation to prevent such a cataclysmic situation.

This conclusion rests on the assumption that the risk of climate catastrophe is growing faster
than the rate at which technology can be developed to mitigate this risk. Is this a reasonable
assumption? The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently produced a list of the most significant technical advances
of the 20th century. The top 10 included: electrification, automobiles, airplanes, water supply
and distribution, electronics, radio and television, agricultural mechanisation, computers,
telephony, air conditioning and refrigeration (the early Internet appeared at No. 13). Might the 21st
century of innovation produce an even more influential list that, if appropriately prioritised,
includes the tools to address global warming before runaway effects occur? Today, even
seemingly permanent damage such as species extinction appears addressable with emerging
gene technology. Tomorrow, geo-engineering (extracting greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere), soil sequestration and non-fossil fuel systems may give us all the answers. Is it a
modern vanity to presume we must solve technological challenges today that will seem trivial to
society next century, especially if our history of technical innovation continues? (Afterall, as
environmental scientist Jesse Ausubel from The Rockefeller University, New York City, noted "At the start of the 20th century there
was widespread concern that horse manure and chimney smoke would bury or choke cities.") This reasoning does not suggest global
inaction but emphasises the key role that public policy, innovation, research and development must play. Climate change should be a
global priority that leads to collaborative focused research efforts to find solutions. Australia's leadership in carbon capture and
storage technology is one good example of this. Nations have to be wealthy enough to make the required

long-term investments in R&D. In any policy choice between economic growth and more conservative, restricted
lifestyles, go for growth and wealth creation supporting a culture of innovation every time.

Growth Solves Terrorism and collapse breeds it

Bremmer 9(Ian, - President of the Eurasia Group, sr. fellow @ World Policy Institute, , 3/4/09,
Foreign Policy,
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/04/the_global_recession_heightens_terrorist_risks)
ET
But there's another reason why the financial crisis heightens the risk of global terrorism . Militants
thrive in places where no one is fully in charge . The global recession threatens to create more such
places. No matter how cohesive and determined a terrorist organization, it needs a supportive
environment in which to flourish. That means a location that provides a steady stream of funds and recruits and the
support (or at least acceptance) of the local population. Much of the counter-terrorist success we've seen in Iraq's al Anbar
province over the past two years is a direct result of an increased willingness of local Iraqis to help the Iraqi army and US troops
oust the militants operating there. In part, that's because the area's tribal leaders have their own incentives (including payment in
cash and weaponry) for cooperating with occupation forces. But it's also because foreign militants have alienated the locals. The
security deterioration of the past year in Pakistan and Afghanistan reflects exactly the opposite phenomenon. In the region along
both sides of their shared border, local tribal leaders have yet to express much interest in helping Pakistani and NATO soldiers
target local or foreign militants. For those with the power to either protect or betray the senior al-Qaeda leaders believed to be
hiding in the region, NATO and Pakistani authorities have yet to find either sweet enough carrots or sharp enough sticks to shift
allegiances.

The slowdown threatens to slow the progress of a number of developing

28/29

[File Name]
29/29

Interlake 13-14
[Name]

countries. Most states don't provide ground as fertile for militancy as places like
Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But as more people lose their jobs, their homes, and
opportunities for prosperity -- in emerging market countries or even within minority communities inside developed states -- it
becomes easier for local militants to find volunteers . This is why the growing risk of
attack from suicide bombers and well-trained gunmen in Pakistan creates risks that
extend beyond South Asia. This is a country that is home to lawless regions where
local and international militants thrive, nuclear weapons and material, a history of
nuclear smuggling, a cash-starved government, and a deteriorating economy . Pakistan
is far from the only country in which terrorism threatens to spill across borders.

29/29