1

Cuban Embargo Affirmative

1AC
Observation 1 is Inherency:
The US is maintaining its embargo on Cuba despite a history of
failure
Chapman 4-15-13 [Steve, writer for the Chicago Tribune, has been a fellow at the
American Academy in Berlin and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and
has served on the Visiting Committee of the University of Chicago Law School, It's
Time to End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba, http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/itstime-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba]
The U.S. embargo of Cuba has been in effect since 1962, with no end in sight . Fidel
Castro's government has somehow managed to outlast the Soviet Union, Montgomery
Ward, rotary-dial telephones and 10 American presidents . Creative CommonsThe boycott adheres to the
stubborn logic of governmental action. It was created to solve a problem: the existence of a
communist government 90 miles off our shores. It failed to solve that problem. But its failure is taken as
proof of its everlasting necessity. If there is any lesson to be drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that

the economic quarantine has been either 1) grossly ineffectual or 2) positively

helpful to the regime. The first would not be surprising, if only because economic sanctions almost never
work. Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North Korea? Don't make me laugh. What makes this

we have so little help in trying to apply the squeeze.

Nearly 200 countries allow trade with Cuba. Tourists from Canada and Europe flock there in search
embargo even less promising is that

of beaches, nightlife and Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with them. So even if starving the country into
submission could work, Cuba hasn't starved and won't anytime soon. Nor is it implausible to suspect that the
boycott has been the best thing that ever happened to the Castro brothers, providing them a scapegoat for the
nation's many economic ills. The implacable hostility of the Yankee imperialists also serves to align Cuban
nationalism with Cuban communism. Even Cubans who don't like Castro may not relish being told what to do by the
superpower next door. Normally it is no business of the federal government where private citizens want to spend
their vacation time. But among those who claim to speak for the Cuban exile community, it is anathema for anyone
to visit the island as long as the communists hold power. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was among those lambasting the
couple for daring to venture where he doesn't want them to go. Rubio claimed that people who make visits to Cuba
"either don't realize or don't care that they're essentially funding the regime's systematic trampling of people's
human rights." Such activity, he said, "provides money to a cruel, repressive and murderous regime." That may be
true. But U.S. law allows Americans to visit the island according to certain rules enforced by the Treasury

The rules for cultural trips were

tightened last year after Rubio griped that they were too lax. "The trip was handled according to a standard
Department, and some 500,000 people from the U.S. go each year.

licensing procedure for federally approved 'people to people' cultural tours to the island," reported Reuters, "and
the power couple received no special treatment, said Academic Arrangements Abroad, the New York-based group
that organized the trip." When it comes to sending money to a "cruel, repressive, murderous regime," Rubio's
outrage is strangely selective. The same accusation could be laid against anyone who travels to China, Vietnam or
Burma -- all of which are open to American visitors, as far as Washington is concerned. Our willingness to trade
with them stems from the belief that economic improvement and contact with outsiders will foster liberalization
rather than retard it. But the opposite approach is supposed to produce this kind of progress in Cuba.

Advantage 1 is the Economy:

The US economy is in trouble- were on the verge of a double
dip
Reddy 4-21-13 [Sudeep, The Wall Street Journal, Economic Woes Abroad Bode Ill
for the U.S.,

3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578436863860612032.
html]
Troubles overseas are threatening the U.S. recovery for the fourth year in a row. This time it's
weakening economies abroad, rather than tumbling financial markets, signaling turbulence ahead. U.S. exports of
goods to the European Union are declining outright. Growth in overall U.S. exports has been sputtering for months,
after a three-year postrecession surge. And major U.S. companies are reporting increasingly dour overseas outlooks
tied to the recession-plagued euro zone and slowing growth in other leading economies such as China. The

renewed fears of a global slowdown come after months of hope that a stronger
recovery was finally taking shape. Enlarge Image "Every now and then you see a glimmer, things
seem to improve, and then a little bit of bad news comes," World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu said as the
world's finance ministers and central bankers gathered in Washington in recent days to discuss how to revive
growth. The emerging troubles today are different from the scares of the past three years. In 2010, 2011 and

U.S. equity
markets rose substantially over that period, they periodically took sharp slides that frightened
businesses and weighed down confidence. Despite the financial tremors, underlying economic
2012, existential fears of a euro-zone collapse spooked investors around the world. While

growth remained moderate in the U.S., and most major euro-zone economies muddled through the early years of
their crisis. U.S. exports to Europe expanded despite the clouds over the continent, helping to propel the U.S.
recovery. Financial markets have been on a tear since the European Central Bank vowed last summer to protect the
euro currency. U.S. stocks, as well, have jumped 15% since last November, buoyed in part by the Federal Reserve's
aggressive bond-buying program. But major economies are languishing. The euro zone's recession is stretching out
longer, China faces new fears of a slowdown and worries have re-emerged about a "spring swoon" in the U.S. "The
pickup in financial markets is clearly not translating into a sustained pickup in growth and jobs," International
Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde said last week. The IMF projects the global economy will
expand just 3.3% this year, largely unchanged from 2012. It expanded 5.2% in 2010, the first full year of recovery,
and 4% in 2011. Signs of global weakness are showing up across corporate America. General Electric Co. GE
+1.91% on Friday said Europe's troubles weighed down its results during the first quarter, despite posting higher
overall profits. "We planned for Europe to be similar to 2012down againbut it was even weaker than we had
expected," Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt said. The company's industrial revenue fell 17% in Europe, while other
businesses there also struggled. Falling commodity pricesone result of slowing growthhave put a dent in orders
for mining equipment that other manufacturers are receiving. The equipment giant Caterpillar Inc. CAT +2.18% said
Friday that its retail sales of machines fell 11% in the first quarter from the same period a year earlier as demand
cooled in major markets. The company's sales in the Asia-Pacific region alone were down 24% during the quarter.

The U.S. has its own share of homegrown problems adding to the overseas
slowdown. An increase in payroll taxes in January is restraining consumers, hurting
retail sales and hammering confidence. Federal budget cuts that started last month
are expected to dent growth in the coming months as government workers take furloughs and
contractors cut jobs. The latest hits to U.S. consumers and businesses make overseas customers more important
for U.S. companies. But economic trouble in the euro zone is ricocheting around the world and hurting other areas,
such as China, which is also seeing exports to Europe struggle. That is contributing to China's weakness and limiting
how much Chinese consumers and businesses might buy from American companies. For McDonald's Corp., MCD
+0.42% the world's top-selling restaurant chain, sales have slipped at stores in China, Europe and the U.S. as
trouble has spread around the globe. Sales at U.S. and European locations open at least 13 months fell more than
1% in the first quarter, while they dropped 4.6% in China. McDonald's CEO Don Thompson on Friday blamed the
company's troubles in part on Europe's "persistently high unemployment rates and ongoing austerity measures"
along with "soft" economic conditions in Asia. He said U.S. sales faced "significant headwinds," including wavering
consumer confidence. Until recently, many U.S. investors and companies had looked past those risks to the U.S.
economy by focusing on stronger growth abroad. That sentiment could be challenged
markets and economies frequently diverge, they can't move in opposite directions forever.

soon . While stock

Lifting trade restrictions is the best way to save the US

economy
Messamore 12 [W.E., contributor to Independent Voter Network, a news service
providing political analysis and democracy-based news, Proposal: Revitalize US
Economy by Easing Foreign Sanctions, 7-24-12, http://ivn.us/2012/07/24/proposalrevitalize-us-economy-by-easing-foreign-sanctions/]

4
Easing economic sanctions on foreign countries like Cuba and North Korea could be a
potential solution to the struggling US economy while fostering international
cooperation and good will abroad. Economic sanctions, or embargoes, are a step below war with
another country and a step above normal, collaborative diplomacy. They represent the use or threat of military or
police action to enforce a blockade against a countrys economy or parts of its economy, preventing the free trade
of goods and services between the people and businesses of the target nation and those of the nation or nations
enforcing the embargo. Sanctions are used to pressure governments into adopting certain policy reforms desired

the United States has sanctions in place against Iran, North

Cuba, among others. The problem is that in unambiguous cost-benefit terms, the
results show that sanctions are massive policy failures, ineffective at accomplishing their objectives,
by the sanctioning country, and currently
Korea, and its neighbor,

and humanitarian disasters. According to a year 2000 UN-commissioned report for instance: The theory behind
economic sanctions is that economic pressure on civilians will translate into pressure on the government for
change. This theory is bankrupt both legally and practically. The Free Trade Petition to the G20 Conference
circulated by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation compellingly sums up the failure of trade barriers as

trade
promotes peace. Perhaps the most tragic example of what happens when that insight is ignored is World War
instruments of foreign policy: A great deal of rigorous empirical research supports the proposition that

II. International trade collapsed by 70 percent between 1929 and 1932, in no small part because of Americas 1930
Smoot-Hawley tariff and the retaliatory tariffs of other nations. Economist Martin Wolf notes that this collapse in
trade was a huge spur to the search for autarky and Lebensraum, most of all for Germany and Japan. The most
ghastly and deadly wars in human history soon followed. By reducing war, trade saves lives. Barriers to
international trade fail to produce desired policy outcomes, tend to rally a countrys people around their repressive
governments against what they perceive as US hostility, lead to poverty and starvation among the poorest classes
of targeted nations, foster ill-will against the United States, are historically precursors to more open military
hostility, and are even bad for the economy of the sanctioning country According to data from the White Houses
export council in 2000: the United States has imposed more than 40 trade sanctions against about three-dozen
countries since 1993 those sanctions have cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual
sales overseas and caused long-term damage to U.S. companies lost market share and reputations abroad as

Moving to ease sanctions on foreign countries and establish permanent normal

could go a long way toward fostering
international good will while opening up valuable markets and economic opportunities for trade, stimulating
growth and job creation in the US. It would be like a multi-billion dollar economic
stimulus package that taxpayers wouldnt have to pay for and the US government
wouldnt have to borrow money to finance, and its effects wouldnt be temporary,
they would be permanent, systemic, and structural. That stimulus of potentially
tens of billions of dollars would come in year after year by way of free and
undirected economic trade between the people of the United States and those of nations currently under
an embargo. The structural and systemic nature of the policy reform, rather than a temporary shot in the arm like
a giant borrow-and-spend appropriation from Congress (e.g. 2009s $800 billion Stimulus Package), would
permanently shift economic behavior, inject some confidence in jittery markets,
allow capital to flow to investments that will be the most productive, and create jobs
that are more sustainable over the long term.
unreliable suppliers.

trade relations with countries currently under economic blockade

Econ decline causes wars- studies prove

Royal 10 (Director of CTR Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department of Defense,
Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science
literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and
national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski

rhythms in the global economy

are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody
and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that

transition

from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic

crises

could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty

about power balances,

increasing the risk of miscalculation

(Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a

relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising

power

may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also
shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among
major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic
conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of
trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic
conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits
from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future
trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the
trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by
interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed

Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between

internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They
conflict at a national level. Blomberg and

write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a
recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other.
(Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism
(Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions.
Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that,

governments have increased

incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect .
when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting

Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that

economic decline and

use of

force are

at least indirectly

correlated . Gelpi (1997), Miller

(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for
democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to
being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that
periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between
integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves
more attention.

Lifting the embargo prevents Cuban economic collapse- solves

instability and terrorist attacks
Ashby 3-29-13 [Dr. Timothy Ashby, holds a PhD, JD and MBA, Senior Research
Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, served in the U.S. Commerce
Departments International Trade Administration as Director of the Office of Mexico
and the Caribbean and as acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the
Western Hemisphere, Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with
the United States The Importance of Trading with State-Owned Enterprises,
http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/]
The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy
makers. Normalization of relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may
accelerate or retard the process. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez is likely to
undermine the already dysfunctional Cuban economy , if it leads to reductions in oil
imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social chaos, especially among the islands
disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for U.S. national and regional security.
To maintain Cubas social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United States must throw itself

The collapse of
Cubas tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and
neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a downturn in the
open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and state-owned.

Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees landed in the Miami area,

6
the United States defines its national
security interests regarding Cuba as follows: Avoid one or more mass migrations; Prevent
including 31,000 criminals and mental patients. Today,

Cuba from becoming another porous border that allows continuous large-scale migration to the hemisphere;

Avoid Cuba
becoming a state with ungoverned spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and others
wishing to harm the United States. [2] All of these national security threats are directly
related to economic and social conditions within Cuba. U.S. policy specifically supports a marketoriented economic system [3] toward Cuba, yet regulations prohibit the importation of any goods of Cuban
Prevent Cuba from becoming a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade;

origin, whether from the islands potentially booming private sectorincluding 300,000 agricultural producersor

State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). [4] Such a policy is counterproductive to U.S. interests . Regardless
of over 400,000 entrepreneurs, including agricultural cultivators, it could be many years, if ever, when Cubas
private sector would be ready to serve as the engine of economic growth. SOEs employ 72 percent of Cuban

rapprochement towards Cuba would therefore require a change

in current laws and in the system of regulations prohibiting the importation of Cuban goods
and products. Normalized bilateral trade will benefit the Cuban people by helping to
provide economic stability and fostering the growth of a middle class both of which
are essential for the foundation of democratic institutions . Two-way trade must include both
workers. [5] A rational commercial

Cubas private sector as well as SOEs. Cuban SOEs are in a state of gradual transition like other parts of the
economy. In December 2012, the Cuban government authorized a wide range of co-ops that will allow workers to
collectively open new businesses or take over existing SOEs in construction, transportation, and other industries.
Considered a pilot program that is a prime candidate for an expansion, the co-ops will not be administratively
subordinated to any state entity. [6] Many Cuban officials, well aware of the limits to small-scale entrepreneurism,
appear to harbor hope that co-ops could shift a large portion of the islands economy to free-market competition
from government-managed socialism. In other transitional states, particularly in post-socialist economies, co-ops
have served as commercial bridges between state-owned and privatized business. Of the 300 largest co-ops in the
world, more than half are in United States, Italy, or France. [7] Ironically, the outputs of such co-ops, including
agricultural products which could find strong demand in the American market, are barred by short-sighted federal
regulations, thus hampering, if not defeating, what could be a major U.S. policy goal. The United States has been
actively trading with foreign SOEs for years. China, a one party, communist state, is the United Statess second
largest trading partner, and Chinese SOEs account for a large percentage of the nearly $400 billion USD in goods
exported to America each year. Venezuela is in the top fifteen of U.S. trading partners, and the bulk of that
countrys exports are petroleum products deriving from the state-owned PDVSA (which in turn owns Houston-based
CITCO oil company). Another communist country, Vietnamwhich initially was the subject of a U.S. economic
embargo similar to that imposed on Cubais the second largest source of U.S. clothing imports and a major
manufacturing source for footwear, furniture, and electrical machinery. [8] On these matters, the Cuban
government has said that it wants to replicate the paths of Vietnam and China. [9] Of relevance to Cuban trade
relations, Vietnam has formally requested to be added to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program
as a beneficiary developing country, which authorizes the U.S. president to grant duty-free treatment for eligible
products. The statute also provides the President with specific political and economic criteria to use, when
designating eligible countries and products. Communist countries are not eligible for GSP membership unless the
president determines that certain conditions have been met, including whether the applicant is dominated or
controlled by international communism. Furthermore, countries that fail to recognize internationally accepted
workers rights are excluded. [10] U.S. statutes do not provide a general definition of a communist country, and
the Obama administration is expected to declare that Vietnam is no longer communist in terms of its economic
system. The argument will be that even if Vietnam is a communist country (hard to deny, considering it has one
party government that is officially titled the Communist Party of Vietnam), it is not dominated or controlled by
international communism because no such entity exists following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Similar
arguments may be applied to Cuba in considering normalized relations with the United States. At the request of
the U.S. Congress, the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted detailed reviews of the frameworks for seven
key statutes that govern Cuban sanctions. [11] The resulting reports concluded that (i) the president still maintains
broad discretion to make additional modifications to Cuban sanctions; and (ii) prior measures, implemented by
the executive branch have had the effect of easing specific restrictions of the Cuba sanctions and have been
consistent with statutory mandates as well as within the discretionary authority of the president. [12] Some legal
scholars assert that absence of such explicit statutory provisions in other areas suggests that Congress did not
intend to prohibit the executive branch from issuing general or specific licenses to authorize certain transactions
with Cuba when such licenses are deemed to be appropriate and consistent with U.S. policies. [13] Although a
complex variety of federal statutes have re-stated the regulatory prohibition on importation of Cuban goods under
31 C.F.R. 515.204, enabling legislation to codify the restriction, has not been passed. For example, 22 U.S.C.
6040(a) notes that 31 C.F.R. 515.204 prohibits the importation of goods from Cuba, but does not codify or
expressly prohibit such activity, and 22 U.S.C. 7028 acknowledges that Congress did not attempt to alter any
prohibitions on the importation of goods from Cuba under 31 C.F.R. 515.204. [14] The complete dismantling of
the Cuban economic embargo will undoubtedly require congressional legislation; however, the president has broad
powers to modify policy towards Cuba, particularly in an emergency situation that could affect U.S. national
security. [15] For example, imports of Cuban origin goods are prohibited under the Cuban Asset Control Regulations

7
(CACRS) except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rulings,
instructions, licenses or otherwise. [16] Such authority could allow the president to argue for the modification of
31 C.F.R. 204s complete prohibition on the importation of Cuban goods by stating that Cuban exports to the
United States help the Cuban people by creating employment and thereby maintaining the islands social stability.
Considering the domestic political constituency and the political obduracy of U.S. Congress, a more realistic
presidential rationale for allowing Cuban imports from all types of enterprises could be the protection of U.S.
borders during an era of grave concerns about homeland security. Some policy analysts suggest that bilateral
trade with Cuba should be restricted to businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e. nonstate) economic activity. [17] While well-intentioned, such a policy would likely have a negligible impact on Cubas
economic development and fails to recognize that commercial enterprises that the U.S. government would classify
as SOEs are actually co-ops or other types of quasi-independent entities that are in the early stages of privatization.

Restrictions such as this also fail to address larger national and regional security concerns

which are the primary responsibility of the president. Although ultimately the Cuban people must freely choose
their own political and economic systems, President Obama should be seen as having legal authority to support the

Normalized bilateral trade

will benefit the Cuban people and help to provide economic and social stability that is in turn
vital to U.S. national and regional security. Such trade must include both the
islands small, yet growing, private sector and State-Owned Enterprises . In this regard, it
transition taking place on the island by opening U.S. markets to Cuban imports.

would be both unfair and strategically unwise to treat Cuba differently from its stated models, China and Vietnam.

Terrorism causes nuclear war

Ayson 10 [Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for
Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, After a
Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects, July, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, Vol. 33, Issue 7, InformaWorld]

But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare

some sort of terrorist attack, and especially

nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a
massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that
not necessarily separable. It is just possible that
an act of

possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the

raising the risks

of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third
parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear
early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as

proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an
especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war.
For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how
Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered
as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be
involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some
possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was
thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40
and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear
material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al.
that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its
radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its
analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication of where the
nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and
American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion
would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France,
and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of

at what stage would

Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in
Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to
assume the worst ? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United
North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But

8
States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were
confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present
time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of
heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures
that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?

Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the
possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For
example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S.
president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful
planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China
might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and
possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might
grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order
a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group
and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these
targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as
an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not
impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the
terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the
Chechen insurgents long-standing interest in all things nuclear.42 American pressure on that part of the world
would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from
Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other
nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could
reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, bothRussia and China would
extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security
Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in
some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to
retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and
China deeply underwhelming, (neither for us or against us) might it also suspect that they secretly were in
cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist
group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and
China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on
them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability

Advantage 2 is Relations:
US-Latin American relations are in decline- new US policies are
key
IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of
Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Impressive economic, political, and social progress at home has, in turn, given Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia,
Peru, and many other countries greater access to worldwide opportunities . Indeed, the regions most salient
transformation may be its increasingly global connections and widening international relationships . Brazils
dramatic rise on the world stage most visibly exemplifies the shift . But other countries, too, are participating
actively in global affairs and developing extensive networks of commercial and political ties . China is an
increasingly prominent economic actor, but India and other Asian countries are intensifying their ties to the region
as well . The United States has also changed markedly, in ways that many find worrisome . The 2008 financial
crisis revealed serious misalignments in and poor management of the US economywhich, four years later, is still
struggling to recover . Inequality has significantly widened in the United States, while much-needed
improvements in education and infrastructure are ignored . The most ominous change in the United States has
taken place in the political realm . Politics have become less collaborative . It is increasingly
difficult to find common ground on which to build solutions to the critical problems on the policy agenda .

Compromise, the hallmark of democratic governance, has become an ebbing art, replaced by
gridlock and inaction on challenges that would advance US national interests and well-being . In part as a

9
US-Latin American relations have grown more distant . The quality
and intensity of ties have diminished . Most countries of the region view the United States as less and
result of these shifts,

less relevant to their needsand with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to deal with the
issues that most concern them . In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and,

the US-Latin America

relationship would profit from more vitality and direction . Shared interests are not pursued
as vigorously as they should be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being
missed . Well-developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce.
happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided . But

The plan restores cooperation between the US and Latin

America
White 3-7-13 [Robert E. White, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy,
was the United States ambassador to Paraguay from 1977 to 1979 and to El
Salvador from 1980 to 1981, After Chvez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With
Cuba, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-goodneighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]
An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America
that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces
seeking social change throughout the Americas . I joined the State Department as a Foreign

Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F.
Kennedys creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution,
led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt
pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th
century. Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic
change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for
Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that
saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been
overly ambitious, even nave, but Kennedys focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor
Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations. Tragically, after
Kennedys assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and la noche mas larga the
longest night began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic
governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and
assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards
save that of anti-Communism. During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that
supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a
demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran
militarys responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign
Service. The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution,
turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States
helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained
them and covered up their crimes. After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the
Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts
found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling
against social injustice and state terror. As a result, we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends
humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national
interest. Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have
undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the
Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba
in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chvez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States which excludes the United States and Canada as an alternative. At a regional meeting that
included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chvez said that the most positive thing for the independence
of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire. Mr. Chvez was masterful at
manipulating Americas antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States
as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a
vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has
given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After
President Obama took office in 2009, Latin Americas leading statesman at the time, Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, then
the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. Lula, as he is universally known,
correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been
since the very early years of the Castro regime. After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set

10
out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy
mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr.
Castro into a folk hero. And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Ral Castros announcement
that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that
two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are
rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations.
(The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.) Are there any other
examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from
acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive? The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr.
Chvez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for

The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to
Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Jos Miguel Insulza, secretary
general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is
prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help. Such a simple
request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral
challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient
five decades.

measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected

If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the
emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington
governments.

would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of

a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern

would be reduced to a historical footnote .
Roosevelt and Kennedy of

Relations solve proliferation, climate change, and economic

growth- engagement is key
Brookings 08 [The Brookings Institution is a private nonprofit organization
devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions, Re-Thinking U.S.Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World,
November, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/11/24-latin-americapartnership]
Developments in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have a very significant impact on the daily lives of those
who live in the United States. Yet because of a lack of trust, an inability to undertake stable commitments by some

the United States and Latin America have rarely

developed a genuine and sustained partnership to address regionallet alone
globalchallenges. If a hemispheric partnership remains elusive, the costs to the
United States and its neighbors will be high, in terms of both growing risks and missed opportunities. Without a
countries, and different U.S. priorities,

partnership, the risk that criminal networks pose to the regions people and institutions will continue to grow.

nuclear technology may be adopted more widely, but without proper regional
safeguards, the risks of nuclear proliferation will increase. Adaptation to climate
change will take place through isolated, improvised measures by individual
countries, rather than through more effective efforts based on mutual learning and
coordination. Illegal immigration to the United States will continue unabated and
unregulated, adding to an ever-larger underclass that lives and works at the
margins of the law. Finally, the countries around the hemisphere, including the United States, will lose
valuable opportunities to tap new markets, make new investments, and access
valuable resources. Today, several changes in the region have made a hemispheric partnership both
possible and necessary. The key challenges faced by the United States and the hemispheres other countries
such as securing sustainable energy supplies, combating and adapting to climate
change, and combating organized crime and drug traffickinghave become so
complex and deeply transnational that they cannot be managed or overcome by
any single country. At the same time, the LAC countries are diversifying their international economic and
Peaceful

political relations, making them less reliant on the United States. Finally, the LAC countries are better positioned

11
than before to act as reliable partners. This report does not advance a single, grand scheme for reinventing
hemispheric relations. Instead, the report is based on two simple propositions: The countries of the hemisphere
share common interests; and the United States should engage its hemispheric neighbors on issues where shared
interests, objectives, and solutions are easiest to identify and can serve as the basis for an effective partnership. In
this spirit, the report offers a series of modest, pragmatic recommendations that, if implemented, could help the
countries of the region manage key transnational challenges and realize the regions potential.

Proliferation causes nuclear war

Monroe 9-12-12 [Robert, vice admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Nonproliferation requires
enforcement, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249049nonproliferation-requires-enforcement]
Proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations is the gravest threat facing the US
and the world. For twenty years two irresponsible and belligerent rogue states have been working intensely to
develop nuclear weapons production capabilities. The world has protested and wrung its hands. North Korea has
now tested primitive weapons, and Iran is close to producing them. When North Korea succeeds in weaponizing its
designs, it will sell them to anyone desiring to buy including terrorists. Neighboring states such as South Korea

Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons and

its likely willingness to give them to proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al
Qaeda for use will stimulate another regional surge of proliferation as Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and others follow suit. In no time the cascade will be global,
as states like Venezuela, Germany, Brazil, and Argentina, rush to protect themselves. With
nuclear weapons widespread, and nuclear material even more readily available,
terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons will not be difficult. Were moving toward a
world of nuclear horror and chaos, a return from which appears impossible .
and Japan will be forced to go nuclear in self-protection.

Global warming causes extinction

Deibel 07 [Terry L. Deibel, professor of IR at National War College, Foreign Affairs
Strategy, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today Anthropogenic
caused by CO2]

there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global
warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists
worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now,
and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near
certainty . Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change
published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that
anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is
virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of
global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort
accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an
international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the
planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the
Finally,

spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming
several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive
hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close
second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads;
widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly
disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up.
From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500
ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to
slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper
stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of

12
and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries
like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West
plants

leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover

North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan
up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the
Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude
Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate,

would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from
moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But

the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive

feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by
and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree

changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring everincreasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that
humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the
earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York
University, were

just going to burn everything up;

were going to het the atmosphere to the

everything will
collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then

thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but

Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent

of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported
scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military
challenges to shame . It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the
United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
possible end life on this planet.

Advantage 3 is US Influence:
The embargo destroys international credibility- the plan is key
to restore US influence
AFP 11 [American Foreign Policy, foreign policy-based magazine run at Princeton
University, Ending the Embargo Against Cuba: Why Obamas Baby Steps Are Not
Enough, 3-16, http://afpprinceton.com/2011/03/ending-the-embargo-against-cubawhy-obama%E2%80%99s-baby-steps-are-not-enough/]
As the presidential election of 2012 approaches, more and more critics are deriding President Obamas pre-election
vision of hope and change, targeting what they consider to be Obamas naivete in foreign policy. This January,
however, the president announced one significant foreign policy reform that he hopes will counter such criticism. In
a memorandum entitled Reaching Out to the Cuban People, he detailed foreign policy changes between the
United States and Cuba that ease the fifty-year American embargo on Cuba. The three-part reform measure that
has gone largely unnoticed attempts to create more contact with the citizens of Cuba, and the changes it

the embargo
is a Cold War remnant of political tension that is hurting American industry,
Americas reputation abroad, and most directly, the Cuban people. Analysis of the negative
implements are certainly admirable. As its failures over the past fifty years have shown, however,

ramifications of the embargo reveals that President Obama should fully end the oppressive embargo and reconnect
the United States with the Cuban citizenry. The economic embargo was first enacted in 1960 as the swift answer to
communist President Fidel Castros seizure of American property in Cuba. Since then, every American president has
maintained the embargo in some form, with a conditional promise to lift it when Cuba adopts a democratic system
of government. Last year, President Obama ended restrictions on travel and cash remittances by family members
of Cubans, but his newest move has forced politicians and citizens alike to reconsider the issue. Although Cuba is
still not fully open to the public and businesses, the new policy aims to enhance contact with the Cuban people
and support civil society by allowing approved licensed travelers for purposeful travel. Following the changes, a
variety of groups can visit the communist state: religious organizations are now able to travel for missionary
purposes, academic institutions are able to sponsor study abroad programs, and cultural groups are encouraged to
host conferences along with other forms of educational exchange. Additionally, reporters have been given more
freedom to travel to Cuba for journalistic purposes. The new policy also allows remittances of $500 per quarter that
can be sent by Americans to Cuban citizens (excluding senior Cuban government officials and members of the

13
Communist Party). The final part of the memorandum affects charter flights to Cuba which had been previously
restricted to Miami and a few other airports. Now, all international airports can apply for licenses allowing flights to
Cuba for family members and others engaging in purposeful travel. The loosening of restrictions continues a
series of recent improvements in American-Cuban relations. Although Cuba is undoubtedly facing economic woes
500,000 government workers were laid off last Septembercitizens are slowly approaching true political freedom.
In February 2008, Fidel Castro resigned from his position as president of Cuba due to health reasons, and Cubas
National Assembly selected his relatively moderate brother, Raul, as his successor. When taking office, Raul Castro
suggested that Cuba may be headed toward a more democratic society, and Cuba is indeed showing signs of
change. In 2009 Raul Castro offered to speak with President Obama, saying, We have sent word to the U.S.
government in private and in public that we are willing to discuss everything, human rights, freedom of the press,
political prisoners, everything. Citizens in Cuba are now allowed to own cell phones, and farmers can till their own
land. Most recently, Cuba has been releasing political prisoners, some of whom had been sentenced to decades of

embargo
policy has been a part of American diplomacy for fifty years . Like most members of his party,
imprisonment. The political buzz generated by the memorandum is to be expected, given that the

Cornelius Mack (R-FL) had harsh feelings toward the presidents policy change, saying that the dictatorship is one
of the most brutal in the world. The U.S. economic embargo must remain in place until tyranny gives way to
freedom and democracy. In a statement that defied the Democratic party line, Cuban-American Senator Robert
Menendez (D-NJ) echoed the sentiments, calling the loosening of the embargo a gift to the Castro brothers [that]
will provide the regime with the additional resources it needs to sustain its failing economy. Yet the changes are
also receiving support from varied sources. Pepe Hernandez, head of the Cuban-American National Foundation,
praised the shift for allowing impoverished Cubans to fight for economic independence from the Castro
administration. Rev. Michael Kinnamon, speaking on behalf of the National Council of Churches, commended the
move, saying, We look forward to the day when the U. S. embargo of Cuba will be lifted completely. Even some
Republicans favor the change, including Senator Richard Lugar, who said last year that the unilateral embargo on
Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of bringing democracy to the Cuban people. Those who still favor
the use of the embargo see it as a way to pressure the communist regime of Cuba. The idea was that, the embargo
would inflict hunger and suffering among Cubans, weakening the regime and even spurring a revolt against the
Castro regime. But Lugar is correct: the failed history of the embargo should disabuse us of this notion. Over the
last five decades, American-Cuban relations have been characterized by stagnation and hostility. The country has
certainly shown signs of hardship, but the Cuban people have not been able to organize and protest against the
government. Instead, Fidel Castro was able to rule with an iron first, before handing the presidency to his brother.
Fidel Castro continues issue regular tirades in the newspaper Granma, which serves as the mouthpiece for the
Cuban Communist Party. Clearly, the outdated embargo has served to strengthen the Castro regime, rather than
create extreme instability. Perhaps most tragic has been the fate of the Cuban people, who continue to suffer
economically, politically, and even emotionally: the nation has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
Although the president deserves praise for the diplomatic changes, they are not new. During the Carter and Clinton
administrations, similar restrictions were lifted, but the changes were short-lived. Moreover, the embargo under the

recent
changes loosen the restrictions, but the basic tenet of banned trade remains intact .
George W. Bush administration was very strictly enforced, effectively negating Clintons reforms. The

American industries are still not permitted to engage in business with the communist nation. Although weakening

the nation needs to take further steps to end

the punitive policy. Increasing contact with the Cuban people is certainly not equivalent to accepting
the embargo is certainly a step in the right direction,

communism. Rather, it exposes Cubans to the democratic principles espoused by the United States and the benefits
of capitalism. At the present time, Cubans are inundated with anti-American propaganda spewed by state-run

it is time to let
diplomacy show American support for the Cuban people . By abandoning the Cuban people, the
media sources. Even though funds from America may indeed benefit the Cuban economy,

United States is leaving them at the mercy of a communist regime that continues to retain power. Forming
economic, academic, and cultural connections will allow the United States to introduce American ideas to Cubans in

ending the embargo would

strengthen Americas own economic interests and improve her reputation abroad.
American businesses currently yearn for the untapped potential present in Cuba, and the opening of trade
would help the United States assert dominance during a difficult economic time .
Furthermore, the negative global consequences of the embargo would be curbed . Cuban
a peaceful and effective way. In addition to aiding the Cuban people,

Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez called the present embargo a cruel and aggressive policy absolutely contrary to

the United Nations

voted to end the U.S. embargo for the 19th consecutive year, with 187 members voting against the
international law and much of the international community agrees; in October 2010,

embargo and the only two votes supporting the embargo from the United States and Israel. President Obama has
taken a step in the right direction with his modification of the embargo against Cuba, but it is simply not enough. In
the current, relatively moderate Cuban political environment, ending the fifty-year-old embargo would give the
Cuban people the American economic and cultural connection they sorely need. If Obama limits his actions to the

Relations
between the United States and Cuba cannot afford to wait another fifty years.
superficial changes of Carter and Clinton, both the president and his policies may be gone in 2012.

14

Soft power solves war and is key to effective hegemony

Jervis 09 (Robert, professor of international politics at Columbia
University, Unipolarity: A Structural Perspective, World Politics Volume
61, Number 1, January 2009)
To say that the system is unipolar is not to argue that the unipole can get everything it wants or that it
has no need for others. American power is very great, but it is still subject to two familiar limitations:
it is harder to build than to destroy, and success usually depends on others decisions. This is
particularly true of the current system because of what the U.S. wants. If Hitler had won World War II,
he might have been able to maintain his system for some period of time with little cooperation from

The U.S.
wants not only to prevent the rise of a peer competitor but also to stamp
out terrorism, maintain an open international economic system, spread
democracy throughout the world, and establish a high degree of cooperation among
countries that remain juridically equal. Even in the military arena, the U.S. cannot act
completely alone. Bases and overflight rights are always needed, and
support from allies, especially Great Britain, is important to validate military
action in the eyes of the American public. When one matches American forces, not against those of
an adversary but against the tasks at hand, they often fall short.54 Against terrorism, force
is ineffective without excellent intelligence. Given the international nature of the
threat and the difficulties of gaining information about it, international cooperation is the
only route to success. The maintenance of international prosperity also requires
joint efforts, even leaving aside the danger that other countries could
trigger a run on the dollar by cashing in their holdings . Despite its lack of political
others because all he wanted was to establish the supremacy of the Aryan race.

unity, Europe is in many respects an economic unit, and one with a greater gdp than that of the U.S.
Especially because of the growing Chinese economy, economic power is spread around the world much
more equally than is military power, and the open economic system could easily disintegrate despite

on a whole host of problems such as aids,

poverty, and international crime (even leaving aside climate change), the unipole
can lead and exert pressure but cannot dictate. Joint actions may be
necessary to apply sanctions to various unpleasant and recalcitrant regimes; proliferation
continued unipolarity. In parallel,

can be stopped only if all the major states (and many minor ones) work to this end; unipolarity did not
automatically enable the U.S. to maintain the coalition against Iraq after the first Gulf War; close ties
within the West are needed to reduce the ability of China, Russia, and other states to play one
Western country off against the others. But in comparison with the cold war era, there are fewer
incentives today for allies to cooperate with the U.S. During the earlier period unity and close

coordination not only permitted military efficiencies but, more importantly, gave credibility
to the American nuclear umbrella that protected the allies. Serious splits were dangerous
because they entailed the risk that the Soviet Union would be emboldened. This reason for avoiding
squabbles disappeared along with the USSR, and the point is likely to generalize to other unipolar
systems if they involve a decrease of threats that call for maintaining good relations with the
superpower. This does not mean that even in this particular unipolar system the superpower is like
Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians. In some areas opposition can be self-defeating. Thus for any
country to undermine American leadership of the international economy would be to put its own
economy at risk, even if the U.S. did not retaliate, and for a country to sell a large proportion of its
dollar holding would be to depress the value of the dollar, thereby diminishing the worth of the
countrys remaining stock of this currency. Furthermore, cooperation often follows strong and
essentially unilateral action. Without the war in Iraq it is not likely that we would have seen the
degree of cooperation that the U.S. obtained from Europe in combating the Iranian nuclear program

many of the American

goals depend on persuading others, not coercing them. Although incentives and
and from Japan and the PRC in containing North Korea. Nevertheless,

even force are not irrelevant to spreading democracy and the free market, at bottom this requires

Building the world that the U.S.

seeks is a political, social, and even psychological task for which unilateral
measures are likely to be unsuited and for which American military and
economic strength can at best play a supporting role. Success requires that
others share the American vision and believe that its leadership is benign.
people to embrace a set of institutions and values.

15

Strong US influence is key to solve global war, terrorism, and

disease
Reiss 08 (Mitchell B., Vice Provost of International Affairs College of William &
Mary, Restoring America's Image: What the Next President Can Do, Survival,
October, 50(5))
But first, there is another question to be answered:

why should Americans care if the United

States is liked or not? After all, foreign policy is not a popularity contest. Policies that are controversial

today may look better in a few years. Perhaps America's unpopularity is just the price that must be paid for being
the world's most powerful country. Yet Americans do care, and their desire to be respected by the world has been
reflected in the campaign rhetoric of both McCain and Obama. This desire extends beyond the normal, nearuniversal human wish to be liked, or at least not misunderstood or hated. Americans still believe in John Winthrop's
description of America as a 'shining city on the hill' and want others to view the United States that way as well. But

there is another, larger reason for caring about the rise of anti- Americanism, one
that is related to the United States' status as the world's only superpower. No one
country can defeat today's transnational threats on its own. Terrorism, infectious
disease, environmental pollution, weapons of mass destruction, narcotics and
human trafficking - all these can only be solved by states acting together. If
others mistrust the United States or actively work against it, building effective coalitions
and promoting a liberal international order that benefits both Americans and hundreds of millions of other people

will be far more challenging. Ultimately, if the United States has to go it

alone or bear most of the costs while others are seen as free riders, the American people are
unlikely to sustain engagement with the world with the same intensity, or even at all. The
history of the last century demonstrates that when the United States retreats from the world,
bad things happen. The United States rejected the League of Nations and turned inwards in the
1920s and 1930s, contributing to the Great Depression and the onset of the Second
World War. After the Vietnam War, a weakened and inward-looking America prompted some
Asian countries to start their own nuclear-weapons programmes, emboldened
Islamic fundamentalists to attack American interests, and encouraged the Soviet Union to occupy
around the world

Afghanistan. While there are some who say this couldn't happen today, that America couldn't pull up the
drawbridge and retreat behind the parapets, recent opinion polls in the United States reveal a preference for

It is hard to imagine any scenario in

which an isolated, disengaged United States would be a better friend and ally to other countries,
better promote global prosperity, more forcefully endorse democracy, social
justice and human dignity, or do more to enhance peace and security.
isolationism not seen since the end of the Vietnam War.

Disease spread will cause extinction

Yu 09 [Victoria, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, Dartmouth
Journal of Undergraduate Science, May 22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate]
In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses . Perhaps the best-known
case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7).

While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other
infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging a process
that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction.
Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been
unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically,
two factors account for the viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does
not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8).

16
Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global
infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill

for more easily

transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could
prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic
drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the
inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a
new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a
cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially
lead to a global influenza pandemic, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird
directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However,

flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu

even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were

required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds
into a human-viable strain (10).
pandemic. Perhaps

17

Economy

18

US econ down
US economic growth is failing- risk of downturn is high

Snyder 2-20-13 [Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of

Commerce at the University of Virginia with two law degrees from the University of
Florida, 20 Signs That The U.S. Economy Is headed For Big Trouble In The Coming
Months Ahead, http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/20-signs-that-the-u-seconomy-is-heading-for-big-trouble-in-the-months-ahead]
Is the U.S. economy about to experience a major downturn? Unfortunately, there
are a whole bunch of signs that economic activity in the U nited States is really
slowing down right now. Freight volumes and freight expenditures are way down,
consumer confidence has declined sharply, major retail chains all over America are closing
hundreds of stores, and the "sequester" threatens to give the American people their first significant
opportunity to experience what "austerity" tastes like. Gas prices are going up rapidly, corporate insiders are
dumping massive amounts of stock and there are high profile corporate bankruptcies in the news almost every
single day now. In many ways, what we are going through right now feels very similar to 2008 before the crash
happened. Back then the warning signs of economic trouble were very obvious, but our politicians and the
mainstream media insisted that everything was just fine, and the stock market was very much detached from
reality. When the stock market did finally catch up with reality, it happened very, very rapidly. Sadly, most people do

Americans continue to rack up

staggering amounts of debt, and Wall Street is more reckless than ever . As a society, we
not appear to have learned any lessons from the crisis of 2008.

seem to have concluded that 2008 was just a temporary malfunction rather than an indication that our entire
system was fundamentally flawed. In the end, we will pay a great price for our overconfidence and our
recklessness. With southern Europe's depression dampening continental demand for goods made in Germany and
other northern European nations, the prospects for U.S. exports and cut-priced competition from Europe in U.S.
markets is heating up -- growth and jobs creation could stay depressed for a long time .
Similarly, the Japanese prime minister's much-heralded stimulus and reforms appear to come down to debasing the
nation's currency to jack up exports to North America and very little else. Labor market reforms have been shelved,
and there's no sign Japan will ease immigration policy or provide new incentives for family formation to counter its
declining population. That spells yet more cut-rate competition for U.S. manufacturers. It is hard to imagine the
Federal Reserve could do more to support growth. Already, it is buying virtually all the new mortgage-backed
securities and 70% of the new federal debt issued each month. This is keeping interest rates low and boosting new

new home construction is less than 3% of the economy and cannot

carry the recovery.
home construction, but

The US economy is set to decline- recovery will fail

Morici 6-7-13 [Peter, Yahoo! Finance contributor, Economy Adds 175,000 Jobs, but
Trouble Lies Ahead, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/economy-adds-175-000-jobs135300611.html]
The Labor Department announced Friday that the economy added 175,000 jobs in May,
but that is hardly the 360,000 jobs needed each month to bring unemployment
down to 6% over the next three years. The jobless rate remained steady rose to
7.6%, from 7.5% in April. Adding in discouraged adults and part-timers who want full-time jobs, the
unemployment rate becomes 13.8%. And, for many years, inflation-adjusted wages have been falling and income

inequality rising -- this remains a buyers market. Sluggish growth is one culprit -- the Bush expansion
delivered only 2.1% annual GDP growth -- that's about the same as the Obama recovery after 45 months. Now,
defense cutbacks negotiated with Congress during President Obama's first term have subtracted some $62 billion
from federal spending since last fall, and an additional $200 billion in higher taxes and sequestration spending cuts
are further reducing consumer outlays and government spending in the second and third quarters of this year.

economists expect growth to slow to less than 2% in the second

quarter, and jobs creation is likely to slow through the spring and summer .
With all this fiscal drag,

19

Cuban econ down

Cubas economy is struggling- lifting the embargo is key

Fortner 12 [Melissa Lockhart, Senior External Affairs Officer at Pacific Council on

International Policy, Cuba reforms: Important changes, but pace is slow, October
3, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-AmericaMonitor/2012/1003/Cuba-reforms-Important-changes-but-pace-is-slow]
Cuba faces some of the same challenges it has for years. How does one encourage workers to
innovate and increase productivity when there are no material incentives for doing so? How can the country
smoothly transition from a centrally-controlled Communist country to whatever it is becoming as it incorporates

manage the countrys use of two

currencies and mitigate the polarizing effect this can have in terms of income disparities for individuals with
access to only one of those two currencies? And there are other challenges facing the country which keep it
on rather fragile footing. Attracting foreign investment remains a challenge when
means for expanding the private sector? How does one effectively

foreigners cannot be confident that their investments will be completely safe, given past experience in Cuba and
other nations, like Venezuela. The Chinese are doing a fair amount of business in Cuba these days, including in oil,

thus far, all wells

have come up dry or disappointing. And of course, there is the US embargo. Despite all,
and economic independence via a major oil discovery remains a hope for Havana: But

Cubas economic growth in the first half of 2012 came in at a respectable 2.1 percent: Better growth than was seen
in the United States, in fact. Cuba is trading actively with partners like Venezuela, China, Spain, Brazil, and Canada,
and even with the United States in select industries that meet regulations imposed around the broader embargo.
As in Myanmar, where reforms are proceeding at a somewhat quicker (or at least more publicly visible) pace, the

progress is imperfect. It is piecemeal. And it is not complete. In Myanmar, many political

detainees remain imprisoned, and clashes between Burmese military and local insurgent groups continue. Yet
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the country at the end of last year to applaud its progress on a number of
other fronts establishment of the National Human Rights Commission, general amnesties of more than 200
political prisoners, institution of new labor laws that allow labor unions and strikes, relaxation of press censorship,
and regulations of currency practices and since then, Washington has relaxed sanctions and steadily reestablished
diplomatic relations in a way that has allowed the United States to re-engage and be an active part of the reforms
and transitions taking place. All this regarding a country with little strategic interest for the United States given its
geographic location half way around the world. Cuba, too, released many of the individuals identified as political
prisoners by the international community. Other reforms have involved expanding the personal economic rights

Huge issues still exist. Activists are regularly imprisoned for speaking out. Private
entrepreneurs face a range of bureaucratic and supply challenges . But there is
an opening during the current transition to make many more changes that the
available to Cubans.
sector

international community has asked to see but not often actively engaged to assist in moving forward. Weve seen

surely there is room for similar processes of re-engagement with

Cuba, at least after Nov. 6, as it moves through its own transition period.
it happen with Myanmar:

Cubas economy wont improve much- gains will unravel

Sullivan 6-12-13 [Mark, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional
Research Service, Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/210919.pdf]
Since 2010, however, growth has improved, with 2.4% growth in 2010 and estimated growth

rates of 2.8% and

observers
maintain that Cubas efforts to expand the private sector and boost productivity, along with
favorable external conditions, could increase help growth to over 4% beginning in 2015, although a
withdrawal of support from Venezuela would jeopardize these forecasts.26 Some economists, however,
maintain that Cuba needs a growth rate of at least 5 to 7% in order to develop the
economy and create new jobsincreasing internal savings and attracting foreign investment
3.1% in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The forecast for 2013 is 3.5% growth.

reportedly are keys to achieving such growth rates.27

Beyond that, some

20

21

Plan solves US/Cuban econ

Lifting the embargo strengthens the US and Cuban economy

Bandow 12 [Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former
special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan, Time to End the Cuba
Embargo, December 11, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-endcuba-embargo]
There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo . For instance, the
European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spains Deputy Foreign Minister Gonzalo de
Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope, then, is to move forward in the
relationship between the European Union and Cuba. The administration should move now, before congressmen are

Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least

the embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting
more licenses to visit the island. Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits
for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates
American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually .
Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for
further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change.
focused on the next election. President
significantly loosen)

Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system. Despite Fidel

Castros decline, Cuban politics remains largely static . A few human rights activists have been
released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites. Lifting the embargo would be no
panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious political impact. And the lack of widespread
economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to

more U.S. contact would have an impact . Argued trade specialist Dan
Griswold, American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive
taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to
the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors,
food venders, and other entrepreneurs. The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end
up in historys dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way. The Heritage
China. Still,

Foundations John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that the United States must not abandon the
Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime. But the dead hand of half a
century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people. Lifting sanctions would be a victory not
for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, commercial engagement is
the best way to encourage more open societies abroad. Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the
embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban
people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

Economic engagement is key to the US and Latin American

economies

IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of

Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Expanded trade, investment, and energy cooperation offer the greatest promise for robust
US-Latin American relations . Independent of government policies, these areas have seen tremendous
growth and development, driven chiefly by the private sector . The US government needs to better
appreciate the rising importance of Latin Americawith its expanding markets for
US exports, burgeoning opportunities for US investments, enormous reserves of
energy and minerals, and continuing supply of needed laborfor the longer term
performance of the US economy . With Brazil and many other Latin American economies thriving and

22
showing promise for sustained rapid growth and rising incomes, the search for

economic opportunities has

Intensive economic engagement by

the United States may be the best foundation for wider partnerships across many
issues as well as the best way to energize currently listless US relations with the region . What Latin Americas
become the main force shaping relationships in

the hemisphere .

largely middle and upper middle income countries and their increasingly middle class populationsmost want
and need from the United States is access to its $16-trillion-a-year economy, which is more than three times the

Latin American nations experienced quicker recovery from the

depend
on US capital for investment, US markets for their exports, and US technology and
managerial innovation to lift productivity . They also rely on the steady remittances
from their citizens in the United States.
regions economies combined . Most
financial crisis than did

the United States, and they are growing at a faster pace . Nonetheless, they

23

Plan solves US econ

Lifting the embargo solves US unemployment and small
businesses
Hanson et al 1-16-13 [Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American
Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina
Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The
U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/]
estimates of the sanctions annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to
$3.6 billion, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade
disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and
financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real
reductions in income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the
Yet,

unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.

Latin America is vital to the US economy

IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of
Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Latin America has been diversifying its international economic ties, the regions expanding
economies have become more critical to US economic growth and stability . Today the
United States exports more to Latin America than it does to Europe; twice as much to
Mexico than it does to China; and more to Chile and Colombia than it does to Russia . Even a cursory
examination of the numbers points to how much the United States depends on the
region for oil and minerals . Latin America accounts for a third of US oil imports . Mexico is the secondWhile

biggest supplier after Canada . Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top dozen, and imports from Brazil
are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore discoveries . Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the
three largest suppliers of oil to the United States . The potential for heightened energy cooperation in the
economic well-being and climate change . Latin
America is an important destination for US direct and portfolio investments,
absorbing each year about eight percent of all US overseas investment . At the same

Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications for

time, Latin American investment in the United States is growing fast . And no economic calculus should omit the
vital value to the US economy of immigrant workers; US agriculture and construction industries are heavily

workers, mostly from Latin America, will drive the bulk of US

labor force growth in the next decade and are important elements in keeping social
security solvent over the longer term.
dependent on them . These

The plan boosts key sectors of the US economy

Lloyd 10 [Delia, senior policy manager at BBC Media Action, Ten Reasons to Lift
the Cuba Embargo, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-thecuba-embargo]

24
It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American
investment would be a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries . According
1. It's good economics.

to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly

Lifting the embargo would also be an

enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing
away with all financing and travel restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba
would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13 million to between
$39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between
18 and 42 percent.
170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand.

25

Impacts- Economy
Economic decline causes every major impact

Green 09 [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University.
Asia Times Online, 3.26.9,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09]
Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and
the US Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for
international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year . For the most part, the
focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe . However, the Great
Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring
impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global
economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In
the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism
in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict . This
spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at
home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are
different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and
world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting.

There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to
restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to
keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to
unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama
administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of
the critical challenges we face . A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention,
although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not
replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications
of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will
be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency
controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US
Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or
reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are
desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic
growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic
orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before
1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold

The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the

newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and
autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for
globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global
economy, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic
standard.

growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant
workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There
were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around
the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun
and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the
1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to
his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown
has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too.

It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all

intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis , which has distracted the
world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord.
With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or
Dangerous states

26
instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under
siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the
North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly boisterous about their
country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state . The junta in Myanmar
has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences
between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more
pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments

It is possible that the economic downturn will

make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and
greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on
the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or
face internal political pressures linked to the economy . So far, there is little evidence to
suggest either and much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an
opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international
system.
grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy.

If the recession turns into a depression, multiple scenarios of

nuclear war take place:
James Cusick, 3/18/2009 Sunday Herald (Scotland)
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2495478.0.dont_bank_on_financial_trou
ble_being_resolved_without_conflict.php
I'm not saying that America is about to declare war on China, or that Germany is going to invade France. But

there are profound economic stresses in central Europe that could rapidly turn into
conflict in the bankrupt Baltic states, Hungary, Ukraine. And if the Great Recession,
as the IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn called it last week, turns into a Great Depression , with a prolonged
collapse in international trade and financial flows, then we could see countries like Pakistan
disintegrate into nuclear anarchy and war with neighbouring India, which
will itself be experiencing widespread social unrest. Collapsing China could see civil war too; Japan
will likely re-arm; Russia will seek to expand its sphere of economic interests . Need I
to go on?

US economic decline causes great WMD wars

Nyquist 05 [J.R. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations,
WorldNetDaily contributing editor, The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,
February 4, www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html]
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction
during the second term of President Bush, the American people will likely
support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our
market economy guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization
of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the
economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming
economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will
have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the
Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the
formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free
market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The political left
openly favors the collapse of Americas strategic position abroad. The

27
withdrawal of the U nited S tates from the Middle East, the Far East and
Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that
presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earths surface in relative
peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading
system that evolved under American leadership, the planets economy would
contract and untold millions would die of starvation . Nationalistic
totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring
war to Asia and Europe. But this time the war would be waged with mass
destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the
center of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in
Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral
disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this
context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia
and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive
wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future financial crash,
therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one
observer recently lamented, We drank the poison and now we must die.

Economic decline causes nuclear and biological war

Kerpen 08 [Oct. 28 policy director for Americans for Prosperity, Phil, From Panic to
Depression?, http://article.nationalreview.com/?
q=OWQ3ZGYzZTQyZGY4ZWFiZWUxNmYwZTJiNWVkMTIxMmU=]
Its important that we avoid all these policy errors not just for the sake of our
prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didnt end until the
advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of
nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on
poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration
would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale .

Collapse of the economy risks end of the planet

T. E. Bearden, 2000 LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association
of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's
Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)
June 24, 2000 (HYPERLINK "http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm"
http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)
As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic
stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to
dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out
that desperate nations take desperate actions . Prior to the final economic collapse,
the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts,
to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now
possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example,
suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces
there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long-range nuclear missiles (some)
can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In

addition to immediate responses, the mutual

treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict,

28
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that,
under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries
and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that
is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible.

As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great
percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the
United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization
as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

29

Impacts- Hegemony
A prolonged recession will undermine US leadership

Bruce Crumley, 2009 (staff writer, February 25, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed,
April 1, 2009. (http://watchmannewsletter.typepad.com/news/2009/02/is-theeconomic-crisis-a-security-threat-too.html)
Part of the strategic challenge posed by the downturn lies in the realm of the
economy itself. Emerging powers such as China or India could take the
opportunity presented by U.S. economic weakness to extend their own
influence in regions traditionally dominated by the U.S. China, in particular,
has already established itself as a major player in Latin America and Africa, and it is
investing heavily in extractive industries across the globe right now, procuring
energy supplies most recently in new oil deals inked with Russia, Venezuela and
Brazil and other natural resources for its industrial economy .

Global nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad, 1995 RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the
rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by
renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the
rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another
global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear
exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar
balance of power system.

30

Impacts- China war

The loss of US competitiveness leads to military confrontations
and demonization of China:
James Petras, 2005 (former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton). October
22. Statism or Free Markets?
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras10222005.html
The Myth of the "China Threat" Instead of accepting the economic
challenge from China and recognizing the need for re-thinking the misallocations of resources and the
over-reliance on the paper economy, retrograde business elites and overpaid trade
union bosses have joined forces with neo-conservative ideologues in
promoting the idea of China as a national security threat which needs to
be confronted militarily. The fusion of militarism abroad and
protectionism at home has gained many adherents in Congress and in the
executive branch setting the stage for a self-fulfilling prophecy . Faced with
increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Washington, China looks eastward toward strengthening its military and
economic ties with Russia and Central Asia while diversifying its trade with Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and

US militant "protectionist militarism" with its confrontational

approach to China threatens to block the free market of knowledge and
technology. China's dynamic growth is not primarily based on "cheap labor" it relies on the production of
Africa.

millions of highly trained scientific and professional workers each year. Each year tens of thousands of Chinese
students, professors and scientists train abroad many in the US. Very few US students pursue advanced degrees in
science and engineering, with the result that foreign students including Chinese are increasingly critical to the US
science workforce. In this free flow of ideas and scientists, both China and the US theoretically benefit from a "free
market" perspective. But as we have argued the US is opposed to the free market especially in the free flow of
scientific 'know-how'. The US is doing everything possible to restrict the exchange of scientists, technology and
knowledge by a wide-ranging definition of "national security". Given their military definition of the China challenge,
Washington argues that Chinese students and scholars should be restricted in what they study, what they learn as
well as their access to technology. Universities, under Pentagon and Department of Commerce ruling, would have to
secure special licenses and mark restricted areas within laboratories to prevent foreign students from using
supercomputers, semiconductors, lasers and sensors in their research. The Department of Commerce plans to
tighten controls in the export of commercial technologies (Financial Times Sept. 1, 2005 p 11). From a free market
perspective US export controls to China are self-defeating, lessening exports thus increasing the trade deficit, and
have little impact on China's access to technology via Japan, Korea and Europe. In contrast, in July 2005 the
European Union signed contracts with China to develop commercial usages of the Galileo satellite navigation

From a militarist-protectionist perspective the restrictions on ideas

and the free circulation of scientists and students can be seen as part of a
campaign of political and perhaps military confrontation and encirclement.
'China bashing' is merely a response to the loss of competitiveness.
system.

Nationalist demagogy in a declining global power is a compensatory

mechanism for the failure of US capitalism to keep up with the
competition at least from its locus in the US economy.

That risks a nuclear war:

Ivan Eland, 2005 (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty)
May 31, 2005. Accessed August 21, 2010 @
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1515
At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, senators of both parties berated the Bush
administrations failure to ratchet up the pressure on China to reduce the
value of its currency, the yuan, by branding that nation as a currency manipulator. The lawmakers also
complained that the value of Japans yen is too high. But such U.S. government interference in

31
commerce is ultimately counterproductive and could lead to a greater
risk of conflict with other nations. On foreign currencies, as with many issues, members of
overseas

Congress respond to the needs of powerful, but narrow, special interests at the expense of the general public,
whose power and interests are more diffuse. Influential U.S. industries that sell overseas face competition from
Chinese and Japanese exports made cheaper by the yuan and yen, currencies that many economists say are held
below market value by their respective governments. Since 1995, the Chinese government has fixed the yuans
value at 8.28 per dollar. The Japanese central bank, with more subtlety, purchased large quantities of dollars in
2003 to drive up the value of the dollar vis--vis the yen. Although Japan quit that practice in March 2004, Japanese
officials have threatened to resume it if the yen continues to rise against the dollar. In addition to being
disadvantaged in world markets against cheaper Chinese and Japanese products, the artificially low yuan and yen
make U.S. exports more expensive in the large home markets of China and Japan. Although U.S. export industries
are hurt by the lower yuan and yen, American consumers here at home enjoy cheaper imports from China and
Japan. Less is heard about the advantages to consumers of lower foreign currencies because consumers have far
fewer lobbyists in Washington than do large export firms. Nonetheless, the world would be a betterand richer
place if the Chinese and Japanese governments avoided trying to influence the value of their currencies and instead
allowed them to float in international currency markets. By distorting their own economies, those governments, like
members of the U.S. Congress, are supporting prominent export industries at the expense of the common
consumer. And while theyre at it, China and Japan could further help their consumers by more fully opening their

the U.S.
government should set a better example by avoiding the kind of pressure
on the Chinese and Japanese governments (and any other government using similar practices)
that members of Congress are demanding. If those governments want to shoot themselves
in the foot, there is no reason why the United States needs to shoot itself in the head. Setting a precedent for U.S.
government interference in overseas commerce could generate further pressure by
domestic groupsfor example, domestic industries that compete with imports from China and Japan to
retaliate for Chinese and Japanese currency manipulation by resorting to
import barriers against products from those countries. Some senators are already threatening to raise
markets to U.S. goods and services by easing tariff and non-tariff barriers. That said,

tariffs against Chinese goods unless China raises the value of the yuan. And according to the Financial Times, the
Bush administration is privately passing along that threat to the Chinese, warning that the value of the yuan must
be raised at least 10 percent to avoid that protectionist anger in Congress. (The 10 percent figure is an example of
government bureaucrats inventing an arbitrary number and applying it to complex international currency markets.)

interference in the international marketplace can ultimately lead to a

trade war among nations. In the 1930s, the Smoot-Hawley legislation that increased tariffs in the United
Thus, government

States was followed by retaliation from other nations. Such protectionism deepened the worldwide depression, and

The United States

has enough tension with a nuclear-armed China over the Taiwan issue and
dual military buildups without interjecting a trade war into the mix. In fact, a
healthy level of international commerce between the two countries could
create a peace lobby in each nation and a greater incentive to avoid
that global economic crisis was a contributing factor to the causes of World War II.

military confrontation .

32

AT: Past recession disproves

Despite the past recession, it could be much worse if we cant
stave off another downturn
Reich 7-13-10 [Robert, professor of public policy at the University of California at
Berkeley and former secretary of labor during the Clinton administration, The root
of economic fragility and political anger,
http://www.salon.com/news/great_recession/?
story=/news/feature/2010/07/13/reich_economic_anger]
The crash of 2008 didnt turn into another Great Depression because the
government learned the importance of flooding the market with cash,
thereby temporarily rescuing some stranded consumers and most big
bankers. But the financial rescue didnt change the economys underlying
structure median wages dropping while those at the top are raking in
the lions share of income. Thats why Americas middle class still doesnt
have the purchasing power it needs to reboot the economy, and why the
so-called recovery will be so tepidmaybe even leading to a double dip.
Its also why America will be vulnerable to even larger speculative booms
and deeper busts in the years to come.

Continued worsening of the recession increases likelihood of

war
Mead 09 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New
Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2]
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse
position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that
of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and
professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of
religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society
for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the
consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where
capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does.
And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet
again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist
great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of
life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of

Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars;
the two World Wars; the cold war : The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can
breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped
bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start
slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but,
if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

33

Relations

34

Brink
Relations are on the brink

IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of

Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
If the United States and Latin America do not make the effort now, the chance may
slip away. The most likely scenario then would be marked by a continued drift in their relationship, further
deterioration of hemisphere-wide institutions, a reduced ability and willingness to deal with a range of common
problems, and a spate of missed opportunities for more robust growth and greater social equity. The United States
and Latin America would go their separate ways, manage their affairs independently of one another, and forego
the opportunities that could be harvested by a more productive relationship . There are risks of simply maintaining
the status quo. Urgent problems will inevitably arise that require trust and effective collaboration to resolve . And

tensions between the United States and Latin America could

become much worse, adversely affecting everyones interests and wellbeing. It is time to seize the
moment and overhaul hemispheric relations.
there is a chance that

35

Impacts- Laundry list

The plan is key to solve climate change, proliferation and
democracy
IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of
Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Washingtons more than half-century embargo on Cuba, as well as other elements of United
States Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed,
the US position on these troublesome issuesimmigration, drug policy, and Cubahas set Washington
against the consensus view of the hemispheres other 34 governments . These
issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The United States and the
Similarly,

nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships .
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties . Every country
in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each
others markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United
States $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for
America, and it could contribute more to the regions economic performance . For its part, Latin
Americas rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the
United States economic future . The United States and many nations of Latin
America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on
such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy
and human rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural

Latin

and demographic integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting
a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits, relations
the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities are not
seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation
persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation .

between

Hemispheric affairs require urgent attentionboth

Caribbean.

from the United States and from Latin America and the

36

Impacts- Proliferation
Relations are key to solve proliferation

IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of

Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions . Because
the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil,
Mexico, and other countries of the region in world forums addressing shared interests . Brazil has the
Many of the
of this,

broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation . In recent years it has become far
more active on global issues of concern to the United States . The United States and Brazil have clashed over
such issues as Irans nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated
when their interests converged, such as in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and

Washington has
worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging
economies in various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund . In addition to economic and financial matters, Brazil and other Latin American
nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political, environmental,
and security issues . Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could
become increasingly important include: As the worlds lone nuclear-weaponsfree region, Latin America has the opportunity to participate more actively in nonproliferation efforts . Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge on nonproliferation questions, they align on some related goals . For example, the main proliferation
challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as
in the leakageor transfer of nuclear materialsto terrorists . In that context, southsouth connections are crucial . Brazil could play a pivotal role.
Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to

rebuild and provide security for Haiti .

37

Impacts- Climate change

Relations solve climate change

IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of

Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
Many countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges . This may
position them as a voice in international debates on this topic . The importance of
the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South
American nations a special role to play . Mexico already has assumed a prominent position on
climate change and is active in global policy debates . Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental
meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20 . Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate
2010 . The United States is handicapped by its inability to devise a
climate change policy . Still, it should support coordination on the presumption of
shared interests on a critical policy challenge .

change in Cancn in

38

Leadership

39

Plan solves soft power

The embargo destroys US global soft power

Rumbaut 11 [Rubn G. Rumbaut, Professor of Sociology at the School of Social

Sciences at UC Irvine, The embargo undermines the image of the United States
throughout the world, http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/the-un-the-usembargo-and-the-20-year-rout-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/]
The

U.S. trade and travel embargo against Cuba is the longest in history, and the most senseless
and irredeemable. It is the act of a bully , based on pique. It is an abysmal moral and political failure,
diminishing not Cuba but the U.S. in world opinion and respect. It has achieved the
opposite of what it has sought, hurting both the Cuban people as well as U.S.
interests. The embargo is opposed by virtually the entire world as well as large
domestic majorities, even Cuban exiles and dissidents; yet, the U.S. government
persists with its petty punitive policy , not out of reasoned principle but for internal political posturing.
The spectacle of the worlds largest economy and sole superpower, seeking in vain
for half a century to strangle a baseball-loving small developing nation that dared to
defy it, is a modern David and Goliath story and no one loves Goliath .

The embargo has destroyed US credibility

Adams 11 [John Adams, retired Brigadier General US Army, The embargo hurts
U.S. national security interests, http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/theun-the-us-embargo-and-the-20-year-rout-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/]
The U.S.

embargo against Cuba is a Cold War relic that hurts America and Cuba by
preventing normal trade and travel between our two countries. From the perspective of U.S. national
security, not only does the embargo prevent our cooperation with Cuba on common security issues such as crime

it hurts U.S. standing throughout the world by highlighting our aggression

against a neighboring country that poses no threat. The United States demeans
itself by this futile and hypocritical policy. It is long past time to repeal the U.S.
embargo against Cuba.
and terrorism,

Lifting the embargo is key to US leadership

Piccone 09 [Ted Piccone is a 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. Piccone serves as an advisor to the Club
of Madrid and has served on the National Security Council, at the State Department
and Pentagon, The United Nations Denounces the U.S. Embargo on Cuba Again,
Oct. 27, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2009/10/27-cuba-un-votepiccone]
For the 18th year in a row, the United Nations General Assembly unequivocally calls
for the end of "the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United
States of America against Cuba." And once again, the United States finds itself completely
isolated from even its closest friends in the international community . It wasnt supposed

to be this way. President Obama is committed to a new course of multilateral engagement in which the United
States reassumes its mantle of responsible global citizen. And in many ways, from the formal creation of the G-20 to
re-joining the UN Human Rights Council, the administration has not just talked the talk, but walked the walk,

40
earning him a rather premature though welcomed Nobel Peace Prize. But when it comes to Cuba, its back to the
same old story: all politics is local, in this case, Miami, Florida. Earlier this year, there was some justified hope that,
after eight years of an increasingly onerous set of laws and regulations restricting trade, travel and remittances
between the United States and Cuba, President Obama would fulfill his promise to try a new path of pragmatic but
principled engagement. And winning Florida last November despite losing the majority of Cuban American votes in
Miami should have given the White House some elbow room to take some bold actions. But even supporters are
disappointed by the excessively cautious steps this administration has taken so far to extend that "unclenched fist"
to our closest island neighbor. If anything, the president seems to have limited his options by locking himself in to
a policy of mutual reciprocity that lets Havana determine the pace of progress in unfreezing 50 years of icy
relations. On more than one occasion, the president has reiterated his view that, in return for letting CubanAmerican families travel and send remittances to their loved ones on the island, the Castro regime must take the
next step toward better relations. He reportedly asked his Spanish counterpart, Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, to
tell President Raul Castro to get moving on democratic reforms. According to an unnamed U.S. official quoted in El
Pais, Obama said, "We're taking steps, but if they don't take steps too, it's going to be very hard for us to continue."
Of course, the fact that financial donations from pro-embargo Cuban Americans to the Democratic Senate
Campaign Committee, which happens to be led by pro-embargo Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ),
have jumped six-fold since 2006 also may have something to do with this approach. It at least seems to reaffirm
another old clich: money talks. While a tit-for-tat approach may assuage the shrinking number of hard-liners in
Miami, it is unlikely to have any effect on the intended audience the Cuban regime, now ruled by Fidel Castros
"younger" brother (78 years old) and a cohort of aged revolutionaries. Cuba has made it very clear that it is
prepared to sit down and talk with the United States in a spirit of mutual respect, i.e., accepting the regime as it is,
rather than as we would like it to be. Until then, it will happily promote the image of David vs. Goliath on the world
stage. It is just too potent and too successful a narrative in winning friends for Havana to abandon, even more so
now that its economy is in a shambles and it needs all the friends it can get. Similarly, the modest steps the
administration has taken so far is unlikely to get much mileage with the other group one would want to influence
the European and other allies who are rooting for a more multilateral, cooperative and pragmatic U.S. policy on this

Washington will have to do much more to begin turning the tide

of international public opinion against the embargo . This does not mean that the United States
should abandon its defense of human rights for all Cubans. But it might want to change its tactics .
and a host of other issues.

Spain is touting its policy of quiet diplomacy as a better model for the European Union, which it chairs in 2010, and
has a few, albeit meager concessions by Havana to back up its argument. We, after 50 years of attempting to
punish Cuba for its bad behavior, have none. So a policy designed to isolate a small, poor Caribbean island has

The lopsided UN vote reminds us yet

again that its time for a change. If President Obama wants to show the world he is
prepared to lead in a new direction, there are a multitude of steps he can take to
ease the embargo and improve bilateral relations without waiting for Congress to act. These include
come around full circle to isolate the superpower instead.

expanding licenses for people-to-people travel for educational, cultural and humanitarian purposes; allowing more
Cubans to travel to the United States; easing the licensing of tradable medicines developed in Cuba; reviewing
whether Cuba should remain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism; and pursuing agreements on disaster relief
and marine conservation. But something tells me that at next years UN vote, very little will have changed, in
Havana or in Washington.

The embargo destroys US influence

Quiones 4-18-13 [Brendan Quiones, M.A. in Diplomacy and International
Relations from Seton Hall University with a concentration in Latin America & the
Caribbean, A New Tack for Cuba, http://savejersey.com/2013/04/a-new-tac-forcuba/]
While American policymakers perpetuate the status-quo, third-party states are reaping the serious economic

many of these states are our allies, manysuch as

help to perpetuate antiAmericanism in Latin America and abroad, using the trade embargo to bolster their
claims. Combating the belligerency of third-party statesand likewisepromoting democracy in Cuba, will be
difficult endeavors indeed. Despite this, the United States should boldly move forward on major
diplomatic reforms with Cuba, ultimately with the goal of exposing the island to American values, and
American economic lifeblood. Should such a policy be adopted, a more egalitarian, democratic future
might be realized by all parties involvedas demonstrated, the status-quo will only serve
to deepen authoritarian strains.
benefits associated with bilateral trade with Cuba. Though

Venezuelaare undeniably situated in the anti-American camp, and as such,

41

Impacts- War
Soft power solves global warfare

Nye 96 [Joe, Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, Washington

Quarterly, "Conflicts after the Cold War, 19.1]
there have been some 30
communal conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many of them still
ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very
difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The
As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples,

UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of
self-determination versus the inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential
communal conflicts of their own. In a world of identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves

uses of
force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to
carry out when both those using force and those on the receiving end are
disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and sub
national groups. Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their
regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other
states within their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated
deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly,

ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into neighboring states, or the use of

The use of ethnic propaganda also

raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more
sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as
neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants.

military personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and
regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such

Leadership by the United States,

as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and a leading democracy, is a
key factor in limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power,
regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of the United States is
conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role

that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and
"soft" ones (the appeal of its political system and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its
international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to
resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of

the United States can continue to enable and mobilize

international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or not the
pursuing them. Yet

United States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman;

the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading
shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security
concerns within the legitimizing framework of international organizations.
rather,

This requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership
effective and joint action possible: forward stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces,
prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with
allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances,
regional security organizations and alliances, and global institutions.

42

Impacts- Hege
Hege solves global war

Zhang and Shi 11 *Yuhan Zhang is a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Washington, D.C.; Lin Shi is from Columbia University. She also
serves as an independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the
World Bank in Washington, D.C. (Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and
rivalry, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-ofconflict-and-rivalry/)
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be
negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy
remains the worlds largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is

the global distribution of power is shifting , and the inevitable result will
be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective
conflict regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the
US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have
bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe,
narrowing. Thus,

India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that
has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so
will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse,
American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As
history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation . For
example, in the late 19th century Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of
conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of
British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. Such a notion
would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemispheres security to become the
order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred
system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful

As a result of
free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have

individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society.
such political stability,

appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable
and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as Americas influence declines? Given

Americas authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin
Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite
extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.
Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the
problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore,
multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional
organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by
that

America, Central and Eastern

Washingtons withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free
markets would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers would compete for supremacy.
Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US
economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar
also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton
Woods System in 1973).

A world without American hegemony is one where great power

wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade
protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in
a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

43

Impacts- Laundry list

Soft power is key to solve disease, econ growth, terrorism, and
drug trafficking
Nye 03 [Joseph, Former Assistant Secretary Of Defense U.S. Power and Strategy
after Iraq, Jul/Aug 2003, Proquest]

The problem for U.S. power in the twenty-first century is that more and more continues to fall outside the control of

Although the United States does well on the traditional measures of

hard power, these measures fail to capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought
about by globalization and the democratization of technology. The paradox of American power is that
world politics is changing in a way that makes it impossible for the strongest world power since
Rome to achieve some of its most crucial international goals alone. The United States lacks both
the international and the domestic capacity to resolve conflicts that are internal to other societies
and to monitor and control transnational developments that threaten Americans at home. On
many of today's key issues, such as international financial stability, drug trafficking, the spread
of diseases, and especially the new terrorism, military power alone simply cannot produce
success, and its use can sometimes be counterproductive. Instead, as the most powerful country,
the United States must mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and
challenges. By devaluing soft power and institutions, the new unilateralist coalition of
Jacksonians and neo-Wilsonians is depriving Washington of some of its most important
instruments for the implementation of the new national security strategy. If they manage to continue
even the most powerful state.

with this tack, the United States could fail what Henry Kissinger called the historical test for this generation of
American leaders: to use current preponderant U.S. power to achieve an international consensus behind widely
accepted norms that will protect American values in a more uncertain future. Fortunately, this outcome is not
preordained.

Only soft power allows us to confront problems related to

global terrorism, WMD proliferation, climate change and
disease

Nye 04 [Joseph, US Military Primacy is Fact - so, Now, Work on 'Soft Power' of
Persuasion, 4-29-2004, Google]
Hard power can rest on tangible inducements (carrots), or threats (sticks), to get others to change their position.
But sometimes governments can get the outcomes they want without threats or payoffs. The indirect way to a
desirable outcome has been called the second face of power. A country may obtain outcomes it wants in world
politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of
prosperity and openness. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in world politics.

Soft power co-opts people rather than coerces them. It rests on the ability to set the agenda or
shape the preferences of others. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public
relations, and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of power - a means of pursuing national interests. When America
discounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price. When US policies
lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others , attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further
reduce its leverage. The manner with which the US went into Iraq undercut American soft power. That did not
prevent the success of the four-week military campaign, but it made others less willing to help in the reconstruction
of Iraq and made the American occupation more costly in the hard-power resources of blood and treasure. Because
of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the US probably will
remain the world's single most powerful country well into the 21st century. But

not all the important types of

44

power come from the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting desired outcomes, but
transnational issues such as climate change, infectious diseases, international crime, and
terrorism cannot be resolved by military force alone. Soft power is particularly important in dealing with
these issues, where military power alone simply cannot produce success, and can even be counterproductive.

America's success in coping with the new transnational threats of terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction will depend on a deeper understanding of the role of soft power and developing a better
balance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.

45

Democracy

46

1AC Module
The plan is vital to Cuban democracy- threatens the entire
region
IAD 12 [Inter-American Dialogue, research organization with majority of Board of
Directors from Latin American and Caribbean nations, Remaking the Relationship:
The United States and Latin America, April,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf]
The 50-yearold US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a
failed and punitive instrument . It has long been a strain on US-Latin American
relations . Although the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United

restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more

States and Latin America .

to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on

Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more

effective US-Latin American engagement . At the same time, Cubas authoritarian
regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the Americas . At present, it is
the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the
press . Latin American and Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting
Cubas eventual transition to democratic rule . An end to the US policy of isolating
Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an
important first step.
normalized relations with

Cuba .

Latin American democracy prevents conflict escalation- has

global effects

UNDP 13 [United Nations Development Programme, UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL

CONFLICT IN LATIN AMERICA, http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis
%20prevention/Understanding%20Social%20Conflict%20in%20Latin%20America
%202013%20ENG.pdf]
Social conflicts affecting Latin America between 2009 and 2010 arose within a historical context influenced by the
this period, Latin America
sustained significant rates of economic growth, reduced its poverty rates, and maintained a mostly
optimistic and positive public opinion of democracy as a political system. Despite this progress and the
diversity of national contexts, there are problems, trends, and choices encountered throughout the region

regions relative success in resisting the global economic crisis. During

which provide a common platform for social conflict. Latin American societies are generally characterized by an
excessively concentrated power, markets that are uncompetitive in the global economy, relatively weak state
institutions of questionable legitimacy, limited citizen participation, and inadequate institutional recognition of

to solve the problems between states and societies especially in

terms of representation, participation, and mediationit is necessary to reject all forms of
authoritarianism. Accordingly, States and societies should advocate a kind of political coexistence that does
cultural identities. In order

not deny the different types of power, conflict, or discrepancies that exist in

a plural society. In recent years,

Latin America has experienced a political transformation that could strengthen

democracy, foster development, and improve its global standing over the long term .

This transformation is facilitated by political changes which include the erosion of the legitimacy of political parties
and the emergence or reemergence of variety of movements and regimes (characterized here as popular
nationalism, pragmatic reformism, and conservative modernism). Considering that societies result from conflict
processes, it is natural that social conflict is a central part of this transformation. Social conflict in the region
should therefore not be considered a negative phenomenon. If it is managed through dialogue and negotiation
and both structural and circumstantial issues are addressedit can offer means and opportunities for pursuing
greater social equality.

Political systems play an important role in conflict management .

47
Countries and societies respond differently to similar demands depending on what kind of institutions they have.
The states historical role as a social actor is a central factor in the contemporary dynamics of the regions social
conflicts. The state not only reflects social and political conflicts, but it is a central element of the system of
economic interests and relationships between political actors which define the dynamics of conflict. Governability
is a requisite for development and functional democracy, and thus it can have a profound effect on the evolution
of societies and states. In large part, governability is determined by the political capacity of States and societies to
compromising institutions and stability. Although structural issues
continue to be significant sources of instability in the region, particularly in terms of

manage their conflicts without

socioeconomic problems and institutional failures, the study summarized here shows that social conflict in Latin
America does not present serious problems for governability. The characteristics and capacities of States and
institutions, including their capacities to manage conflicts, vary significantly across the region. The Latin American
State has a central role in negotiations and conflicts, but paradoxically it has limited capacities for managing and
resolving them without threatening social cohesion and democracy. In countries where the State is weak and lacks
legitimacy, citizen participation is required to manage social conflicts. Similarly,

local institutions and

municipalities are becoming legitimate and important actors in the management of conflicts.
The analysis of social conflicts in Latin America reveals that they are commonly managed in para-institutional
contexts, and the relationship between State and social groups often shifts between formal and informal contexts.
Actors in social conflicts still resort to institutions and norms to pursue their interests, but such recourse is often
accompanied by para-institutional measures in which informal social networks and mechanisms help to regulate
social relations between individuals and formal institutions. It is precisely within this para-institutional domain
that social actors mobilize. Social conflict in Latin America can be divided into three broad categories that
represent the different kinds of demands that are collectively pursued: social reproduction, institutional, and
cultural conflicts. Social reproduction conflicts stem from demands relating to labor and wage issues. Institutional
conflicts most often address the inefficiencies or weaknesses of norms and institutions. Cultural conflicts generally
involve demands related to quality of life issues, the recognition of identities, third generation rights, and the
Cultural conflicts in particular have significant systemic
consequences given the growing role of culture in a newly globalized Latin
America. Countries with broad social inequality and governments with scarce legitimacy experience greater
numbers of conflicts. Conversely, more socially-equitable countries with governments that enjoy
greater levels of legitimacy experience fewer conflicts . More complex relationships were

concept of cultural citizenship.

observed between the quantity of conflicts and other factors, such as conflict radicalization, institutional legitimacy,
and social gaps. However, in general, conflicts tend to escalate and radicalize because institutional frameworks
are incapable of offering solutions and spaces for negotiation. Finally there is a growing trend for traditional and
spontaneous conflicts and actors to spread, mobilize, and gain support through information and communications
networks. The region is taking part in a new global system made up of real-time networks of information flow and
exchange, affecting society and its dynamics. Technology and globalization are affecting the evolution of social
conflicts in the region by redefining public space, favoring individual capacity and participation, fostering
spontaneity, and elevating the profile of actors and issues.

Latin American instability causes global war

Rochlin 94 [James Francis, Professor of Political Science at Okanagan U. College,

Discovering the Americas: The Evolution of Canadian Foreign Policy Towards Latin
America, 130-131]
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important.
Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions

of
declining U.S. influence in the region which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth
in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt, anti-American
sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on were linked to the prospect of

explosive events occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a
cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that in a worstcase scenario, instability created by a
regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy
Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important
hegemonic role in the international arena a concern expressed by the director of research for Canadas Standing Committee
Report on Central America. It was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and
perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict
resolution, such as Contadora, as will be discussed in the next chapter.

48

Democracy solves extinction

Diamond 95 [Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December,
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p.
http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html]

Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very

source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered .
Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by
the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important
lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not
go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves
or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their
own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass
destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and
enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They
are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their
own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their
environments.

49

Plan solves democracy

Lifting the embargo is key to Cuban democracy

Tisdall 4-8-13 [Simon Tisdall is assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the
Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and
served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., Time for
U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba]
There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate .
The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both
political and financial. Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela.
His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may
not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not
allowed Cuba. The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the
past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the
Bush administration has abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is
booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf,
including Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China. The stand-off
over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The
continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with

the continued ostracism of Cuba's

people -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- is unfair, unkind and
unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully
to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the
two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.
its major allies, including Britain and the EU. But more importantly,

Lifting the embargo bolsters Cuban democracy

Lloyd 10 [Delia, senior policy manager at BBC Media Action, Ten Reasons to Lift
the Cuba Embargo, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-thecuba-embargo]
Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided
the Castro brothers with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing
economic problems, rather than drawing attention to their own mismanagement .
Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology products, the United
States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information
from the outside world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization .
6. It's counter-productive.

50

Add-Ons

51

Terrorism
The plan frees up resources to solve terrorism

Lukas 01 [Aaron Lukas is an analyst at the Cato Institutes Center for Trade Policy
Studies, Its Time, Finally, to End the Cuban Embargo, December 14,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-finally-end-cuban-embargo]
the embargo backfired, it wastes American resources that are needed to
fight terrorism. Treasury officials who could be unraveling terrorist financial
networks are instead tracing property owned by Spanish hotels in Cuba to make sure it
wasnt stolen from Americans decades ago. INS agents that could be watching our borders for
suicide bombers are instead worrying about tourists who may have spent money in
Havana. These shouldnt be our top priorities. In fact, they shouldnt be priorities at all.
Not only has

Terrorism causes nuclear war

Ayson 10 [Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for
Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, After a
Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects, July, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, Vol. 33, Issue 7, InformaWorld]

But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare

some sort of terrorist attack, and especially

nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a
massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that
not necessarily separable. It is just possible that
an act of

possess them. In this context, todays and tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the

raising the risks

of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third
parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear
early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as

proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an
especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war.
For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how
Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered
as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be
involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some
possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was
thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40
and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear
material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al.
that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its
radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its
analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication of where the
nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and
American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion
would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France,
and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of
North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But

at what stage would

Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in
Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to
assume the worst ? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United
States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were
confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present

52
time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of
heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures
that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?

Washingtons early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the
possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For
example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S.
president might be expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful
planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China
might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and
possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might
grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order
a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group
and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these
targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as
an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not
impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the
terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the
Chechen insurgents long-standing interest in all things nuclear.42 American pressure on that part of the world
would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from
Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other
nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could
reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, bothRussia and China would
extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security
Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in
some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to
retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and
China deeply underwhelming, (neither for us or against us) might it also suspect that they secretly were in
cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist
group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and
China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on
them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability

53

Environment
The embargo prevents environmental cooperation

Whittle 11 [Daniel Whittle, Senior Attorney and Cuba Program Director for the
Environmental Defense Fund, The embargo hobbles our ability to protect the
environment, http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/the-un-the-usembargo-and-the-20-year-rout-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/]
Oil

drilling in Cuban waters creates an unprecedented urgency to rethink U.S. policy

toward Cuba. An oil spill in Cuba could be disastrous to shorelines, marine life,
coastal communities and livelihoods in both countries. The U.S. should eliminate
political and legal obstacles that hinder its ability to share expertise if an emergency
occurs in shared waters. The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps to promote scientific
exchange and dialogue on environmental protection with Cuba. Environmental diplomacydone right and
carried out in good faithcan lay a foundation for real and lasting improvement in CubaU.S. relations.

Ecosystem collapse risks extinction

Coyne and Hoekstra 7 (Jerry and Hopi, *professor in the Department of

Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND Associate Professor in the
Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, New
Republic, The Greatest Dying, 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyneand-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)
Healthy ecosystems the world
over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation,
water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems
But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us.

that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn
biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of
native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native
prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to
these developments,

soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with

temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and
runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify
water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the
most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off

the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on
which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton
vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and
produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by
phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also
imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They
provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer
coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems phytoplankton,

those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as
much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that
doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed.
Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact
on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who
suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a
powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing

54
clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable
proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors),
and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has
given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and
aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap
of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer
drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent
have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered?
Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so
far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects
on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists
always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and
equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values
that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what
could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and
realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially
everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not
necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such

our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth

extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but
natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste
accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat,
failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that
we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will
remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a
secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what
we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the
greatest dying of them all.
concerns, it is certain that

55

Alliances
The embargo weakens US alliances

Hanson et al 1-16-13 [Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American

Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina
Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The
U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/]
the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has
long been a point of friction between the U nited States and allies in Europe, South
America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically
condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out
trade and migration restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies
At present,

nationalized during the Castro takeover have dropped their claims.

Alliances solve nuclear wars

Ross 98 [Douglas, professor of political science at Simon Fraser University,

Canadas functional isolationism and the future of weapons of mass destruction,
International Journal, Winter 1998/1999, lexis]
Thus, an easily accessible tax base has long been available for spending much more on international security than
recent governments have been willing to contemplate. Negotiating the landmines ban, discouraging trade in small
arms, promoting the United Nations arms register are all worthwhile, popular activities that polish the national selfimage. But they should all be supplements to, not substitutes for, a proportionately equitable commitment of
resources to the management and prevention of international conflict and thus the containment of the WMD
threat. Future American governments will not police the world alone . For almost fifty years the
Soviet threat compelled disproportionate military expenditures and sacrifice by the United States. That world is

Only by enmeshing the capabilities of the United States and other leading powers
in a co-operative security management regime where the burdens are widely
shared does the world community have any plausible hope of avoiding warfare
involving nuclear or other WMD.
gone.

56

Inequality
The embargo causes economic inequality

Lloyd 10 [Delia, senior policy manager at BBC Media Action, Ten Reasons to Lift
the Cuba Embargo, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-thecuba-embargo]
If strategic arguments don't persuade you that it's time to end the
embargo, then perhaps humanitarian arguments will . For as anyone who's traveled to the island
7. It's inhumane.

knows, there's a decidedly enclave-like feel to those areas of the economy where capitalism has been allowed to

the island, which feels very much like the

remnant of an exhausted socialist economic model . When I went there in the 1990s with my
flourish in a limited sense (e.g. tourism) and the rest of

sister, I remember the throngs of men who would cluster outside the tourist haunts. They'd hope to persuade
visitors like me to pretend to be their escort so they could sneak into the fancier hotels and nightclubs, which they
could not enter otherwise. Horse -- yes, horse -- was a common offering on menus back then. That situation has
apparently eased in recent years as the government has opened up more sectors of the economy to ordinary

the selective nature of that deregulation has only exacerbated economic

inequalities. Again, one can argue that the problem here is one of poor domestic policy choices, rather than the
embargo. But it's not clear that ordinary Cubans perceive that distinction. Moreover, when you stand in the
airport and watch tourists disembark with bucket-loads of basic medical supplies,
which they promptly hand over to their (native) friends and family, it's hard not to feel
that U.S. policy is perpetuating an injustice .
Cubans. But

We must reject economic inequality where we can

Ellis 03 [Justin, writer for The Chicago Maroon, Fear and dehumanization, 1-2403, http://chicagomaroon.com/2003/01/24/fear-and-dehumanization/]
Because I refuse to dehumanize an enemy, I cannot, in good conscience, describe myself as truly right, or truly
wrong, or do the same for my enemy. America is not a pristine beacon of democracy and goodness. Neither is it a
despicable imperialistic monolith. To salvage some poor semblance of sanity, we must admit our wrongs and fix
them, while simultaneously addressing the wrongs of the Arab world. To invade Iraq without an energy conservation

without an end to capital punishment and

economic inequality, would be to put ourselves above reproach. We would be
accessories to a foul and bloody crime. I also cannot refuse my enemy human rights. Hamdi should
plan, without a humane end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and

not go free. Neither should Padilla, and most likely, neither should the captives of Guantamano Bay. They deserve
the right to due process. The classification of enemies as combatants is a legal fiction. Hamdi, if he took up arms
against his country, is a traitor. Let us put Hamdi on trial for treason. Only then can his punishment not be our guilt
nor his imprisonment our shame. Only if the terrorists are given the same legal rights as all other human beings can
we even pretend that our side is moral. Of course, the partisans of al Qaeda do not care if we have the right to due
process. They only wish our deaths. However, if we deny a shared framework within which to govern our lives, we
have lost ourselves. What worth is it to survive, if one lives under constant suspicion and fear of ones own
government, where the courts are a farce and representative democracy a mockery? The rights and political system

rights must be, if possible,

extended to all peoples. The United States is not alone against the world. It must make itself into the
of the United States must survive without encroachment. Finally, these

capstone of a new internationalism in which all countries would participate in the defense of liberty. The President,
when he threatened the United Nations with irrelevancy, in effect claimed that the rest of the worlds citizens were
inferior. This is absurd. Remember, as was once claimed by a few spurious rebels, that all people are created equal.
Remember that all those people deserve freedom, security, health, and economic opportunity. Remember that we
have no other moral option. If anyone is to fight for ones self-defense as a people, one must do it united with all
civilization. The position that I have suggested lies at an uneasy meridian. No position is entirely right, especially
one of ourselves. This nightmare will not pass without much pain, much death, and much suffering. Fear will remain

we must, stand in defense

of human life and human dignity. We have no other choice. In such a total darkness, let us hope and
with us longer than we can now realize. But we can, at least, and I believe that
work for a small, flickering light.

57

58

2AC

59

Plan Popular
The plan is politically popular

Lloyd 10 [Delia, senior policy manager at BBC Media Action, Ten Reasons to Lift
the Cuba Embargo, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-thecuba-embargo]
9. It's unpopular. According to the travel-service provider Orbitz Worldwide,

67 percent of Americans

favor lifting the travel ban, and 72 percent believe that expanding travel to Cuba would positively impact
the lives of Cubans. Orbitz has collected more than 100,000 signatures in favor of
restoring travel to Cuba through its OpenCuba.org drive. And according to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of
the leading proponents of lifting the embargo, if a vote in Congress were taken secretly, the ban on travel and
trade would most likely fall. In other words, the environment to lift sanctions may be ripe
politically in a way that it wasn't even six months ago .

60

2AC Tradeoff DA
Turn- the embargo drains tons of money and resources

Hanson et al 1-16-13 [Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American

Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina
Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The
U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/]
Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the government has undertaken more than 300
economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and restrictions have been lifted on property use, travel,
farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is still a place of oppression and gross human
rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person nation is moving in the right direction. Despite

the U.S. spends massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban
goods out of the United States. At least 10 different agencies are responsible for
enforcing different provisions of the embargo , and according to the Government Accountability
Office, the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of
thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year .
this progress,